Biblical Hebrew Forum

["dan-ake mattsson" <dan-am AT online.no>]

Peter Kirk wrote:

>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,

Most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed that Logos (the Son) was
subordinated to the Father and at the same time they believed in the
"Son's" eternal generation. I put "Son" in quotation marks because, from
one point of view it is wrong to say that the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed
in the "Son´s" eternal generation. Strictly speaking, they did not believe
that the Son was eternal, but the reason of God, from which the Son came
forth (or was articulated), was eternal. E.J. Fortman,1972, "The Triune God
A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Grand Rapids:  p 50,
wrote: "If God must have His Logos from eternity, must he also have His
Son? Later theology and dogma will say yes unequivocally, but the
apologists are not quite clear on this point and rather seem to say no. For
them, if the origination of Logos from God is eternal, the generation of
the Logos as Son seems rather to be pre-creational but not eternal, and it
is affected by the will of the Father." It does not seem that you are
familiar with the Fathers' view of eternal generation which you need to be
to understand the words of Theophilus.

Athanasius flatly rejected the meaning of words when they spoke aginst what
he believed. He wrote (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers I: 349): "For
terms do not disparage His Nature; rather the Nature draws to Itself those
terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to essences, but essences
are first, and terms second. Wherefore also when  the essence is a work or
creature, then the words "He made" and "He became", and "He created" are
used of it properly, and designate the work. But when the Essence is an
Offspring and Son, then "He made" and "He became" and "He created" no
longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but "He made" we use
without question for "He begat"."

E. P. Meijering comments in his thesis " Orthodoxy and Platonism in
Athanasius Synthesis or Antithesis?", Leiden 1974, p 104 on this kind of
special pleading: "God is the eternal, unchangeable, always identical, real
Being, says Athanasius, using both language and arguments which are also
found in the Platonists. He is then confronted with the difficulty that
many Biblical texts seem to contradict this ontological conception of the
divine, especially of the Son. By making use of the Platonic theory that
the words are secondary to the matter signified by them, he can explain
those texts in such a way that they corroborate his doctrine of the
ontological divinity of the Son." .

Different persons used the key words relevant to the trinity doctrine in
different senses before Nicaea. To create and to beget is in the Bible used
as synonyms (Psalm 90, Proverbs 8) and they were also used in this sense
before Nicaea. This changed dramatically after the council in 325 because
the creed used them as antonyms.  I am not aware of a single source with
such a use before Nicaea. Are you?

The creed said:
"And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten born of
the Father, that is, of the substance /ousia/ of the Father; God from God,
light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created,
consubstantial /homoousios/ with the Father. (..) And we believe in the
Holy Spirit."


I am very surprised that you ascribe the meaning "give birth" to QNH. It is
the first time I hear such a suggestion. The verb QNH primarily is used in
the stative sense "to possess" in the Bible, and this is evidently a
resultative meaning coming from the core of the concept which revolves
around "aquire". So one aquires with the result that one possesses.  Not
far from "aquire" is "create", which is well attested for a similar word at
Ugarit.  Neither in Gen 4:1; Ex 15:16 or Ps 139:13 is "to give birth"
required. Do you find this meaning in any lexica? If Gen 4:1 shows
something, it must be that to give birth can be used in a sense which is
close to "to aquire", "to make/create".



Greetings

Dan-Ake Mattsson