From: GregStffrd@aol.com
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 21:08:18 EST
In a message dated 01/25/2001 12:05:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, CEP7 writes:
<< ARCH is a verbal noun. It does not have to be transformed into one. >>
ARCH is not a verbal noun in the sense of beginner. It may be in terms of a
process, as the start of a series, for this is clearly how we see it used
elsewhere. (cf. John 2:11). But this does not open it up to any and all
verbal ideas. One must show that a verbal idea that is suggested is likely or
at least possible, and this is best done by showing how the suggested verbal
idea is found in other texts. I had asked for some references that might
support this view, but none have been given.
<< The same would be true of ARCWN, ERGON, AGAPH, etc. >>
These are nouns that implicitly suggest a particular verbal idea. ARCH does
not, in spite of its cognate relations, suggest the idea of "beginner," but
of a beginning process of some kind, if at all.
<< Nouns with verbal cognates are essentially verbal nouns. >>
Then it should be a rather simple thing to find other verses where ARCH has
verbal associations such as those suggested, when it is the head term of a
genitive expression.
<< Thus, when genitive substantives are related to verbal head nouns, the
genitive should be taken as a verbal genitive unless the context dictates
that this is not the proper sense. >>
In what sense is the genitive here (THS KTISEWS) verbal?
I had written:
GREG:
If Christ is the beginner, then he is not an intimidate agent, but the causal
agent. If one is intermediate, then someone else is beginning the process
through that agent. Col. 1:15-17 does use EN AUTWi, showing the instrumental
role of Christ in creation, but this is used together with passive verbs!
Hence, again, the beginner is someone other than Christ, who creates
"in/through" him. I see nothing that would indicate that Christ is the
beginner, but, as you seem to suggest, an intermediate agent. This is not
consistent with the idea of "beginner," which rightly is reserved for the
causal agent.
To which Charles replied:
CHARLES:
This is rather complicated to explain so let me use a rather inexact
analogy. When I order a meal in a restaurant. Who is the agent involved in
making sure I receive a meal. The waiter takes my order takes it to the chef
who makes the meal and the waiter brings my meal to me. The waiter is the
ultimate agent (well actually, I am the ultimate agent since I ordered it)
because he takes the order and brings the food. The chef is an intermediate
agent because he prepared the meal. There are a whole host of other
intermediate agents and instruments (people who provide ingrediates the tools
used to make the meal, etc.).
END QUOTE
I suppose if creation were an item ordered then that might be a better fit
for this analogy. But we are dealing with a direct cause, one who through the
use of passive verbs and select prepositions (EK and DIA) is shown to be the
active agent, working through one considered the passive agent. To be the
"beginner" suggests the first cause, the direct cause, the actual cause. Not
agency, passive or other.
If Christ is the "beginner" then how is God (the Father) the beginner? He is
not, really. Can you think of a better analogy to make your point?
Everything else in the context of NT thought in terms of who created and how,
suggests viewing God as the active cause working through Christ. This is not
consistent in any sense yet provided for viewing Christ as the "beginner" of
those things God created through him. It is actually a contradiction (see
below), unless you do not really mean that Christ is the REAL beginner (first
cause) of creation, in which case I have to question the use of a term that
does not capture the meaning intended.
<< Creation is much less complex, at least from an ex nihilo standpoint.
Basically, you can see it from two standpoints. One can simply see the
Father, Christ, and Spirit all having roles in creating without designating
specific tasks in creating or any causal or hierarchal structure. The
hierarchical viewpoint would be having creation as the Father's idea and
ultimate cause, Christ is the Agent whom He commissions to create, and the
Spirit is the instrument which Christ uses to create. The point is there does
not necessarily have to be one person that is seen as the agent of creation.
>>
It is actually even simpler than that: The use of the passive verbs in Col.
1:15-18 leave no room for doubt. The Father did not simply have an "idea,"
but created through and in the Son. The verbs there and elsewhere are
indisputable. Of course, if you are going to suggest that EKTISQH and
EKTISTAI do not depict the Father as the Creator and the Son as his passive
agent, then we need to know that in order to properly understand what it is
you are suggesting above, with respect to possible roles in the creation
process, suggested roles which seem to clash with the language used in the
NT, and how this ties in with the use of ARCH in Rev 3:14.
Greg Stafford
---
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 - 15:36:49 EDT