[b-greek] Re: BDAG at Rv 3:14 - Christ was the first creation now probable

From: Iver Larsen (alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 13:34:43 EST


Hi, Wes,

Thanks for your comments. Let me respond below and try to keep myself to
linguistics and semantics.

> Dear Iver,
>
> you wrote:
>
> > Since Bauer lists "ruler, (person with) authority" as another
> > common sense of
> > ARCH (I would have listed this as the secondary) sense rather
> > the rare "first
> > cause") and since the primary sense of "beginning" does not fit
> > in Rev 3:14,
> > would it not be more reasonable to suggest that ARCH here is to
> > be understood in
> > its secondary sense, i.e.. "ruler of God's creation"?
>
> Pardon my tardy response but I subscribe to the digest. Since you replied to
> this with a linguistic point of view rather than a theological one, I will
> take some time here. As you stated, context is important to determine which
> sense of a word applies. Since "beginning" is the unmarked meaning of ARCH,
> we should look for signals from the near context that would warrant us to
> adopt a different sense than the unmarked one (i.e. "beginning").

I think you are using markedness in a rather unusual way. The primary sense is
not "the unmarked meaning". The primary sense simply means that if you count the
uses of the different senses of a word in a particular corpus of texts, the most
commonly used sense may be called the primary sense. But the various senses of a
word in isolation are not marked or unmarked. It is the immediate linguistic
context that determines which sense is to be understood. If the immediate
context does not give a decisive answer, then one needs to move out through
layers of context, first, the context of the same author in the same book, then,
the wider context of the same author in different books, then the NT context,
then the OT context, then wider Greek context etc. Of course, there are other
things that come into play such as a clear quote or reference to an OT passage
or a parallel passage, which is common in the Gospels. One should not come to a
particular text with the a priori assumption that the word is used in its
primary sense, and the context would then have to strongly disprove this.
Rather, one should come to the context with an open mind to all the possible
senses and let the context determine which sense is most appropriate.

> an argument that "the context reveals X" is really little more than the
> reader's theology that believes whatever X is and then what I call
> "word-smithing" begins. In other words, as I am sure you have seen as well,
> "word-smithing" is sometimes performed under an appeal to "context" when the
> context reveals no such thing clearly. That is why we must be careful with
> appeals to "context" and double-check that the semantic signals truly exist.
> I am not saying that you are directly doing this since you have consulted a
> lexical entry first.

The misuse of an important principle does not negate the validity of the
principle nor the necessity to make use of it. It just underscores the need to
use it carefully. I think we agree on this.
>
> As for ARCH as "ruler", please note with a careful reading of the BAGD
> reference that you cited that the sense of "ruler" is with EXOUSIA and when
> it occurs in the plural form in the bible. BAGD 1979 says:
>
> ARCH 3. _ruler, authority_ ... w. EXOUSIA Lk 20:20; pl. [plural] Lk 12:11;
> Tit. 3:1 ...

I looked up the entry again and read it carefully, again. First, the dictionary
lists some passages from Greek sources outside the Bible of the meaning "ruler,
authority", one about being a witness to the ruler and the judge. Then it gives
some references to the same meaning from LXX. These are mainly from the passage
of the cupbearer and baker in Gen 40-41. For instance, the chief cupbearer
ARCI-OINOKOS is restored to his authority KATA THN ARCHN SOU THN PROTERAN
(according to your former authority). The root ARC- which you find in chief
cupbearer, chief baker and even chief angel (archangel) does not signify
beginning, but top position. When we think of ARCH we need to think not so much
about English "beginning", but English "first position." The semantic concept of
ARCH is close to Hebrew ROSH (head, first, beginning), and I think much closer
than to Hebrew RESHIT (beginning, first). It is always dangerous to say that a
certain Greek word refers to a certain Hebrew word and then carry over the
semantic meaning of the Hebrew into the Greek. Then the dictionary goes on to
say that ARCH occurs together with EXOUSIA in Luke 20:20. That does not mean
that ARCH can only mean "authority, ruler" when it occurs together with EXOUSIA.
I don't know if you want to imply that, but this was my impression from your
statement. Then it lists a number of places where the word occurs in the plural
(rulers, authorities). But again that does not meant that the word can only have
the sense of ruler when it is used in the plural.
>
> Rev 3:14 does not have this kind of language to mark its use in the sense of
> "ruler". Therefore, linguistic semantics does not appear to be directly
> driving the rendering of "ruler" here, does it?

I hope I have shown above why I believe you are making some linguistically
invalid conclusions here, completely apart from theology.

> There is a theological
> difficulty accepting that the Son is a part of creation and so a motive for
> pursuing another sense is borne. There is hardly any other book of the bible
> that exalts the Son as highly as does Rev., but this provides no clear
> indication of how ARCH should be translated here. Objectively and taking
> theological hats off, honesty must cause us to admit that this scripture can
> be used to support the theology that the Son is a created being, as DBAG
> suggests. There is no instance of EXOUSIA or similar in the verse that would
> mark ARCH for the sense of "ruler".

Arguments from theology are always difficult, because theology is basically
tradition. It is therefore hard (or easy?) to say that those I disagree with are
just reading their theology into the text, while I myself have no such bias.
>
> Perhaps this is why BDAG interprets ARCH as meaning that Christ was a
> created being from linguistically possible to probable? If not, what do you
> suggest?

I cannot speak for BDAG.
>
> Returning to the JTS article, many scholars believe that the language of Rev
> 3:14/Col 1:15 comes from Prov 8:22, as did both parties at Nicea, "Jahve
> brought me forth [EKTISEN, LXX] as the beginning of his way." (Keil and
> Delitzsch commentary on Proverbs, p. 183). Granted that Prov 8:22 is among
> the most hotly contested scriptures in the O.T., after reading JTS Burney
> that BAGD/DBAG cites, he concludes fairly convincingly that the Hebrew QaNaH
> has the sense of acquisition, or "producing" rather than passively
> "possessing". Thus, the Son was "begotten" or EKTISEN given this definition
> and this can have a bearing on how we understand Rev 3:14/ Col 1:15.

I have no qualms about disagreeing with "many scholars", because I could
probably find as "many scholars" who would disagree together with me. Prov 8:22
does not talk about Christ, but about personified wisdom, and it is not a
parallel context for Rev 3:14 or Col 1:15.

> Thus, linguistics provides constraints as to what senses of the words can
> reasonably apply. This, in turn, should constrain the variety of theological
> interpretations that are available to one. These may be some reasons why
> DBAG decided to update their commentary and did not put forth the sense of
> "ruler" for Rev 3:14. Having said this, there are other interpretations of
> "beginning of the creation of/ by God" that do not hold that the Son was a
> created being, but ARCH can also be used as support of that, as DBAG cites
> as "prob."

BAGD is useful as far as it goes, but we must recognise that when they assign
particular senses to particular passages they are doing their interpretation
which may or may not be correct.

Best wishes,
Iver Larsen


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:48 EDT