From: CWestf5155@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 27 1997 - 02:09:46 EST
Carl,
I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed reply. I also appreciate the
speedy reply.
<< Well, one of the things that is developing more and more in
Koine is the expansion of a use of EN with an instrumental (dative) that
existed but was relatively rare in classical Attic. At any rate, EN +
dative is being used more and more in Koine to express the notion of "by
means of." And that's invo;lved in Col 1:16, the traditional version of
which is: "because in him were all things created."
I had remembered that was the case, but wasn't sure how much the range of
meaning had shifted.
<The question--the very
one you're raising--is whether EN AUTWi can be an agent construction
meaning "by him." I really don't think so. I've just now taken a close
look at Dan Wallace's grammar and he gives it a serious discussion and
seems to me to come down pretty clearly on the negative side of the
question. EN AUTWi ought NOT to be understood as an equivalent either of
hUPO + genitive of a personal agent NOR as equivalent of the older Greek
dative of personal agent with a passive verb, a construction that isn't
really found at all in the NT.
Your letter really helped me to sharpen my focus. I think that I was
thinking of agency in the broadest sense, which would include the
instrumental. I see that Wallace allows for the broader meaning, but in this
discussion, the more specific, the better.
< At any rate, what I think is going on in Col 1:16 is a variant of John 1:3:
PANTA DI' AUTOU EGENETO KAI CWRIS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE hEN. That is to say,
the LOGOS, or the EIKWN, is not to be understood as the AGENT carrying out
the creation, but as the "instrument" by which creation was effected. There
are immense problems here, but the chiefest of them are those consequent
upon transforming a powerful metaphor into a theological doctrine. I think
that what is being said in John 1:1 and in Col 1:16 is that Christ is not
the creator but the instrumentality of creation, the medium whereby God
creates. If that's not gobbledy-good to you, then we're both fortunate. If
it is gobbledy-gook, then I'm sorry, but my inclination is to declare
ignorance where ignorance is all that I can profess. So that's where I
shall leave it.
That sounds very solid. I see that Wallace says the "by" would be a possible
translation for "Impersonal Means," but I think that I agree with you that in
this case, though permissable, it isn't the best selection. I also agree
that referring to Jesus as "creator" is problematic. I missed Furuli's
point, I guess.
We are still left with an interesting configuration of prepositions. I am
not sure that we have fully accounted for the nuances of EN AUTWi, DI' AUTOU,
and EIS AUTON. Do you suppose that DI'. . . and EIS. . . are intended to
amplify EN . . .?
>P.S. I'm glad you raised this question OFF-list--there are sharks out there
when you get into theological issues; I'd rather steer clear of such.
Yes. Well, given the nature of some of the discussions, it may have operated
like a set up, or a "bait and switch," or something. Speaking for myself,
even though I tend to hold conservative/traditional views (as far as
Scripture), I really appreciate your honesty. I didn't find your previous
statements on inspiration offensive. I wanted to know what you thought.
Good grief, I'm a big girl and can handle it. Or as my daughter would say,
"I'm buff!" Talk about a shift in range of meaning!
Cindy Westfall
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:07 EDT