Eimi and Time

Peter Phillips (p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk)
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:31:36 +0100

Yes, but that way you just end up in a circular argument. If 'beginning'
is simply a reference to a time before physical matter was created then it
is not the beginning - John would not use ARCHE. You seem to be suggesting
two phases of creation - a phase of creating spiritual and angelic beings
and then a stage of creating physical beings. I don't see how you can
cover the first stage with the word "ARCHE" it just doesn't seem right.

Moreover what's all this about angels anyway? John 1 says that the Logos
created all things - in fact nothing was made that has been made without
him. Therefore angelic beings must come in at John 1:3 where the verb
changes to GINESQAI. The Job reading is irrelevant.

There is no need to give a temporal distinction to EIMI in John 1:1-2.
John is referring to a pre-creation, pre-BRSHT period (time-speak again!)
and therefore uses a-temporal EIMI and then when he turns to look at Gen
1.1 and the creation of all things he turns to GINESQAI for the temporal
connection. John 1:1-2 provide details about states of being (EINAI), John
1:3ff provides the dynamic of things coming-to-be (GINESQAI).

Pete Phillips,
Cliff College, Sheffield, England

p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk
http://champness.shef.ac.uk/