Challenged by Sulla

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

Hello Sulla,

In order to enhance the clarity of the things we will discuss, I will address each of your poiints separately and then move on to the next.

For your first point, you claim that one can not use the LXX when making the statement that you are allowing scripture to interpret scripture because you evidently do not feel that the LXX qualifies as scripture. To that I would simply say that Jesus and the Apostles so trusted the LXX that they quoted it as the word of God, therefore, some parts of the LXX came to be incorporated as inspired words via those quotations. Unless there is due reason to think that the examples given from the LXX are somehow inaccurate or tainted, then your objection simply holds no weight. We have every reason to believe that they accurately portray a Hebrew genitive example of the beginning/"re-shyth" of something. Do you have reason to believe that these examples are not accurate?

As it stands, the NT alone presents a consistent example of "arche" with a genitive. It affords no exceptions to the stated observance that the arche is always the first thing in relation to time or in relation to a series of things.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Of course, the LXX is is a perfectly viable translation -- as I noted in my comments already. But in the case where we are discussing the proper translation from Greek into English, and when one of us insists that the grammatical uses in other places in scripture are the only factor, it should be obvious that any appeal to a translation into Greek is not germane to the discussion.

Look, the LXX is a translation of the original writers' words. All that tells us is how the scholars who translated it from Hebrew into Greek thought it would work best. It is simply impossible to argue that this translation is inspired and, therefore, counts as scripture.

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

I'm a little pressed for time right now, so I'd just like to make a brief comment. (Famous last words, right?)

While I agree with you, obviously, that the LXX translation process wasn't inspired, I disagree with you that it is not useful to the point being made by Rotherham.

One of the benefits of using the LXX is that it gives us another linguistic point of reference to determine the intended meaning of the Greek construction ... that point of reference being Hebrew. Thus, we see not only how the LXX is translated into English at those points, and that the NT writers by all accounts understood these LXX translations precisely as we understand their own usage of such statements, but also the meaning of the Hebrew statements that the LXX translators saw fit to translate using this Greek genitive construction.

From one end to the other - From Hebrew, through Greek, all the way to English - the meaning is consistent. The arche is part of the group, and this even when arche means "ruler".

My time constraints don't allow me to say more, but I'll contribute as I can.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

Hey HeKS,

Perhaps we disagree about the point Rotherham is trying to make. As for the possible benefits of using the LXX, I couldn't agree with you more. It really does provide another linguistic point of reference, we really can see how NT writers understood those constructs, etc. & etc.

Indeed, I am more than happy to evaluate this evidence. But let's not pretend that when we look at the LXX we are doing something other than evaluating the translational choices of a bunch of smart men, OK? Whatever the grammar of some passage in Genesis as found in the LXX tells us, it is useless for Rotherham's argument which, as you can read, thinks that the LXX provides a large part of the grammatical database of inspired writing.

The grammatical constructs of the LXX are no more inspired than the grammatical constructs of the NAB, NIV, KJ, or NWT are inspired. I am quite confident you can see that we can use the LXX to see how users of Greek built grammar but that we cannot claim to be letting "scripture interpret scripture" when we do so. And Rotherham's claim is that he is not doing the first thing and that he is doing the second.

If he wants to use the LXX texts, that's fine with me. But he must remove the claim that he is letting scripture interpret scripture. It's one or the other.

S.

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Stand by whatever you like, but everybody who reads your paper is going to know that the inspired writers of the book of Genesis or Daniel never wrote anything in Greek at all. The people who wrote in Greek were the (non-inspired) translators of those words.

It surprises me to have to make this point at all, let alone make it more than once: it does not matter whether the LXX properly translates anything at all. If you want to look at how inspired writers use certain grammatical constructs in Greek, you simply cannot use the work of people who are not inspired by God.

While we're at it: it does not matter at all whether the translators of the LXX properly rendered Hebrew genitive phrases or not. Frankly, I can't even understand why you bring that up. You paper is not asking whether and how those particular scholars translated Hebrew into Greek; your particular paper is asking how we ought to translate and understand inspired writings from Greek into English. Your paper analyzes this question by considering the inspired record only and, to belabor a belabored point, that ain't the LXX.

I am certain you can grasp this. If you are going to claim to use only the inspired writings to analyze grammar, then you really have to restrict yourself to using the inspired writings. The fact that you don't restrict yourself in this way, and the fact that you claim you can't even see why you should, highlights the reason why people should not trust your analysis.

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

There is no reason to continue to go back and forth on this for I maintain the same position I stated before, that the LXX renders the correct grammar to express what was written in the inspired Hebrew within the passages in question. The fact that you don't contest that shows that you know it to be true. So, regardless if one should appeal to the LXX as "scriptural" examples, the point is maintained. I supposes if it would please you more I could take the long route to this same conclusion which will also demonstrate why your objection is moot and does not accomplish what you want it to.

Looking at the Hebrew, "re-shyth" is the word that corresponds to the Greek "arche" and the English "beginning". The LXX examples prove that "re-shyth" to a Jewish LXX translator meant "beginning". In Hebrew, which does not have an actual genitive case, a genitive phrase is formed by what is called the 'construct', which is a situation where two nouns are juxtaposed rather than separated. Whenever we find re-shyth juxaposed with another noun, it always means "beginning OF ...(whatever it is juxtaposed with), and the beginning is always in relation to time or a series of things. Therefore, the parallel Hebrew examples prove the point as well, which is proven by the way that the LXX renders the Hebrew construct in those cases. Therefore, in those cases, the LXX stands as a perfect example of what was intended in the original inspired scripture and as I said, it turns out to be tantamount to the inspired word of God because it even renders the grammactical construction properly as is found in the Hebrew in those cases under question.

So, both the Hebrew scriptures, as properly reflected by the LXX, and the Greek NT show the consistent pattern of how "re-shyth" or "arche" is to be understood in a genitive phrase.

The real question you need to answer Sulla is whether or not you can find an exception to this unmistakable pattern as found in the inspired word of God. If not, then your point is moot and we need to move on to your point two.

Do you deny that both the Hebrew, the LXX, and the Greek NT consistently use arche and/or re-shyth with a genitive in the manner stated? If not, then the point is solid. If you do deny it, then make your case.

Regards,
Rotherham

[HeKS]

I have more to say on this first point. I hope to get to it later tonight.

HeKS

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Sulla,

Let me ask you first and you answer, since you do not like my answer. Do you believe that translations that correctly carry forward the grammar and the syntax of the inspired writings are tantamount to the actual inspired writings? Or in other words, although the translators are not inspired, is it not true that what they copied or translated IS, if properly rendered?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Rotherham, this debate is about the arguments you make in your paper; it isn't about my opinion of an argument you don't make in that paper. This is what I can't seem to make you understand.

It does not matter whether the translators got everything right or made a hash of everything. Your argument is that you don't want to rely on the opinions of men. However well the translators of the LXX did their job is not material to your point. If you agree that their translation choices are not inspired, then you cannot both include them in your analysis and claim you are not relying on the opinions of men.

It really is that simple. So I ask again: if you are going to look at how inspired writers use certain grammatical constructs in Greek, don't you think you should limit yourself to inspired writers who wrote in Greek?

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

In addition to what Heks has very correctly presented, let me add the following:

The answer to your question is therefore a qualified no. We do not limit ourselves to how inspired writers in the Greek used the word for “beginning”, which for them was arche, in order to let scripture interpret scripture. Here’s why:

Although I used Greek examples in the article, it is nowhere stated nor intended that I was only examining the way inspired writers used the Greek. My intent was to show how certain words are understood in a given syntax or grammatical phrase throughout the entire Bible, not just the Greek NT. Re-shyth and arche are used as equivalents in Hebrew and Greek, which the LXX proves, and I examined the Hebrew construct examples via the LXX because they are properly rendered and can be considered tantamount to the word of God and therefore scriptures because of that. If the LXX accurately rendered the grammar and syntax of the Hebrew down to the proper case, than it is tantamount to letting the scriptures interpret the scriptures. It is the same thing. I never stated I was limiting the scriptural examples to how Greek inspired writers used a word in a particular syntax but how the entire Bible used a word in a particular syntax. Whenever the Hebrew, as demonstrated by the LXX, would use “beginning” {re-shyth} in a Hebrew construct, it was always a genitive example and it was always used in relation to time or a series of things in those genitive examples. Since the LXX rendered it properly, it is tantamount to saying that the scriptures always render it that way and scripture has therefore interpreted scripture for us in these examples.

Shall we move on to point two?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

Rotherham, please show me where your paper makes any point about Hebrew grammar. Is there some paragraph discussing "Re-shyth" that I missed?

Indeed, if your point is simply that the words that are translated from arche or Re-shyth are, when part of a genitive phrase, always partitive, what point is there in using examples in Greek at all? You could just grab any old English translation to make the point.

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Just for you because I like you so much, I will edit the article so there is no confusion as to what was meant. I take it that you agree then that whenever the Hebrew and Greeks words for "beginning" are used genitively, (re-shyth and arche) they are always partitive and refer to being the beginning in relation to time or a series of things. Is that correct? All scriptural examples of such are thus consistent without exception, right?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Don't do it for me, I'd as soon see you leave it as is -- it's easier to abuse that way. As for whether all scriptural use of those particular phrases are partitive, I don't know because I haven't checked. I'll get back to you.

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Rotherham,

Yes, please remind me if I forget. By all means, let us move on to point two.

HeKS,

I'm satisfied with Rotherham's promise to revise his paper and make those points. I would say, however, that the paper talks about Greek grammar and no other grammar and that it uses examples that are all in Greek (translated into English, of course). One would have to be squinting pretty hard to think the point was something broader than the Greek grammar.

That said, I couldn't agree with you more that, with respect to the overall patterns, "there is nothing inherently wrong with referring to these as divinely inspired grammatical patterns." Moreover, you are perfectly correct to note that, "It just needs to be understood as analogous grammatical patterns used for conveying certain meaning even across separate languages rather than specifically Greek in this case." The way to make it understood in this way is to make the argument in the paper this way, which Rotherham has pledged to do.

So it seems we are all in violent agreement on this question.

On the other hand, expanding (or perhaps, making clear that the point was always just this expansive) the argument to include patterns of meaning in Hebrew as well as Greek, and including these examples from 1,000 years or more removed from the immediate context of the verse in question does seem to make the curious absence of any investigation of the immediate context all the more curiouser. But that is a matter for point two, I suppose.

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

I would say that Rotherham focused on the LXX examples because:

1) They accurately convey the analogous Hebrew grammatical patterns in the same language as the case text of Rev 3:14

2) They provide a relatively contemporary example of the common Greek usage of arche in genitive statements in instances where we can establish the meaning from a different language (Hebrew), and are yet sufficiently removed in time to provide a broad perspective of such continued common usage over a few centuries from the time of the LXX to the close of the NT canon.

3) They show the scriptural frame of reference for the use of arche in genitive statements in the version/translation of the scriptures that was used and quoted from by the NT writers and with which their own usage is acknowledged to match in all cases other than, it is claimed, Rev 3:14.

That having been said, I'll see you on Point 2.

Take care,
HeKS

[HeKS]

The discussion will now move to Point 2 of the challenge.

HeKS

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

No problem. I'll just set the table for when you get a chance to address the second question.

Basically, the question is: how come there is no discussion of the direct context (according to genre, author, situation, audience, overall theme, etc.) in the paper? That is, how is it that you think a genitive partitive gramatical construct written in another language by another author in a radically different circumstance addressed to a different audience living in an entirely different culture 1500 years earlier counts as evidence, but none of the things I mention above are important enough to include in your analysis?

More to the point, perhaps: isn't an analysis that makes no mention of those elements really no analysis at all?

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

First, you still mischaracterize my argument. I spelled out the difference clearly as well as Heks. You failed to address the real argument once again.

Second, there was no cherry picking going on as ALL the scriptural examples of such construction demonstrate the same thing. One can hardly claim someone cherry picked something when all the examples are consistent.

Third, the rest of your objections are still waiting on a argument to accompany them. As it is they are simply objections without evidence.

Point three? Shall we move on?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

I'll be posting soon. Busy times.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

I think I'm seeing where there has been a rather large misunderstanding or miscommunication. The list of additional things you think ought to be considered is not what the paper sets against giving primary weight to scriptural examples.

The point of the paper is that when one has a large and consistent database of usage for a particular term or grammatical construct in the scriptures, one should not disregard that database for some uncommon external occurrence of that term or pattern. To be a little more clear, the paper says it would be better to give primary weight to the totally consistent usage of arche in genitive statements throughout the scriptures when interpreting Rev 3:14, rather than looking for one different stray occurrence in the apocrypha or some secular piece of literature and trying to use that to support a reading that is unprecedented anywhere in scripture. In other words, this is an argument relating to what should be given the most weight as a grammatical reference or database. The paper argues that it is the Bible.

This argument says nothing about the propriety of considering the other factors you mention, which are mostly non-grammatical.

Now in terms of a treatment of those factors in a paper like this, I'm not sure how Rotherham ought to go about addressing certain of those factors in a way that doesn't seem like a simple attempt to lengthen the paper unnecessarily.

To explain what I mean, let's consider something like the historical context of the late first century persecutions. Now, if someone believed that this context gave necessary reason to disregard what the verse actually seems to naturally say in light of every other occurrence and translate/interpret it in an otherwise entirely unprecedented way, I could see them writing some lengthy consideration of the issue to explain this belief of theirs. But when one does NOT believe this context necessitates the disregarding of the relevant scriptural database and does not create any problem with the corresponding interpretation, what exactly is one to say that brings any significant meaning to the argument of the paper? To me, such a context presents no problem and ultimately has no bearing on the matter (of course, you will recognize that saying that it doesn't and saying that it can't or is wrong to consider are different things). I assume Rotherham feels the same. Were we presented with an argument to the contrary, then I'm sure one or both of us would address that, but I'm not sure I see the value of an author initiating the consideration of some factor that he feels has no bearing on the subject at hand, unless he is offering a rebuttal to claims that it does have a bearing right from the start.

Of course, I'm open the idea that I'm somehow missing a good and valuable way to do such a thing.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

Well, I trust you can see what the problem is, then. When you go and quote an expert like Wallace, who clearly states the necessity of looking at something like the list of factors I provided and who makes use of such analysis throughout his book, it seems entirely reasonable to suppose that the paper is attempting to utilize those standard methods.

It seems to me there is more than one way to engage these other factors. Probably, it would be good to acknowledge that the central idea of the paper -- that many examples that are ... etc. & etc. make other factors irrelevant is highly controversial itself. Right? This is a deep assumption -- in the sense that it is crucial to understanding the approach of the paper; it is a very controversial assumption -- in the sense that I think very few people would make a similar argument when the alternative translations are within the lexical field, as they say; it is also an entirely unstated assumption -- in that the paper never even explains why it views all this other stuff as irrelevant. In fact, as you explain the exclusions of the paper, it doesn't even actually say that it thinks all those other factors are irrelevant.

But we are stuck with the fact that those pieces of the standard analysis are not engaged when an educated reader would expect them to be. And while I agree that it would be impossible to engage every possible argument, it seems that there exists some duty to explain to the reader why the context or audience, say, doesn't matter as a specific rule in this case.

So I think what is mising is an explanation of why it might be that the examples in this case so completely trump the various contextual factors that they need not be addressed at all. I mean, I get it: you keep saying that with so many examples, nothing else matters. But I hope you can see that kind of assertion doesn't help -- it is not true of our everyday speech and it is, therefore, not clear why it would be true in the Bible. To take one obvious example, I may write about the banking system, my bank, going to get cash from the bank, the bank that sold my mortgage, the bank bailout, etc., 1,000 times. Yet my statement that I am going to fish in the shade on the bank cannot be governed by any number of previous uses. In this case, the immediate context absolutely trumps any number of previous examples.

So, if you are going to argue the other way around -- that many examples absolutely trump context -- then it seems to me you owe the reader some explanation for why you think that is. It is controversial enough that it demands some explanation.

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

While at first glance I don't disagree with your point in principle, where I find myself at odds is in your expression that the paper takes the unstated position that this list of examples trumps context, or any of the other factors you mention. The reason I disagree with the application of your general principle to the case of this paper is because, by saying it's written from the position that the database of examples trumps all those other factors, it suggests that those factors point to a different conclusion than that suggested by the database of other cases in the Bible. We don't believe that is so. We see no conflict between the rendering and interpretation suggested by that database and the context, textual or historical. You're the one who seems to think there is conflict, but you haven't clearly expressed what you think that conflict is.

The only arguments I've personally come across for the necessity of a different reading based on historical context have essentially boiled down to the assertion that the early Christians believed Jesus was uncreated and was Almighty God. Arguments from textual context have boiled down to essentially the same assertion, reading the text of Revelation with the Trinity in view and then arguing for the necessity of the Trinity to explain a reading that is based on a Trinitarian presumption in the first place. That is to say, I've yet to come across a historical or textual argument for a Trinitarian reading or interpretation that did not rely on the already existing assumption that the Trinity is a correct doctrine. I don't say a different kind of argument may not exist, but I've never seen it. If you have one, I'd be happy to look. But surely you see that raising the issue only to combat such a broad argument as the assertion of early belief in the Trinity is something that would be better suited to a book, or several books, rather than in a paper that considers the natural reading suggested by the use of the term and grammatical construct everywhere else in the Bible and the usage of the specific author himself, and that considers all the other factors you mention to fit in perfectly well with that suggested interpretation.

But at this point, can we just determine that we are on the same page in recognizing that when the paper talks about ignoring the internal Biblical database of examples for less common external cases, and that such a course would not be wise, those external cases are not the types of further factors you have mentioned but uncommon renderings of the word or grammatical pattern in extra-biblical literature?

As for your analogy, I'll address that when we move on to point 3.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

For now I'll leave Rotherham to comment on his thoughts as to your suggestions for how he might improve the paper. I don't think they are bad ideas in terms of broadening the scope of the paper.

I think, though, that we may disagree on what the paper proves conclusively. To me, it proves conclusively that, according to the uniform use of arche in such a grammatical construct in the scriptures commonly read by those living in NT times and in the scriptures produced by the NT writers - and according to the otherwise entirely consistent use of arche and archon by John himself - the use in Rev. 3:14 has a natural reading as the "beginning of the creation of/by God," with the natural meaning that this beginning is PART of the creation of God. From a Biblical point of view, it is, on a macroscopic and microscopic level, the precedented translation and interpretation.

As such, any meaningful discussion must acknowledge this fact and begin here. It does not do to approach this passage from the perspective that there are a variety of equally likely or feasible translations and interpretations. Grammar may not be a panacea for all one's exegetical woes, but it helps to severely limit the list of reasonable possibilities. More than that, it can also show which of those remaining possibilities is most likely. Attempts to argue for a different meaning must account for all these factors and demonstrate why external factors trump that most natural reading and elevate some other possibility to an equally likely (or more likely) status.

The paper could benefit from an expanded or broader consideration of the factors you have mentioned, but I think the paper establishes, at the least, where such a conversation would need to begin.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Please tell me what are the different parts of confidence. I admit I was unaware that confidence had parts.

[HeKS]

Hello Sulla,

The beginning of one's confidence is the initial or first bit of confidence one develops on an issue. Hopefully, with time and an increased awareness of relevant matters, that confidence will grow. The result is an expanded confidence, an augmented confidence, a greater or more full confidence, but it is not a different or separate confidence. It is the same confidence as the one the person had at first, but that confidence they had at first doesn't exhaust the confidence they come to have. Thus, when one is speaking retrospectively of the beginning of their confidence, they are talking about something that equates to a portion of the fullness of their current confidence; the groundwork of their current confidence; a part of their confidence that came to exist before the other parts of their confidence began to be built upon that foundation.

The beginning of one's confidence is, indeed, partitive in that confidence.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

You know how much grammar bores me, HeKS. Still, confidence has parts? Child, please.

More likely, we are looking at a genitive of apposition (the source, who is our confidence), or genitive of product (the beginning, which produces our confidence).

Actually, there are other mis-classifications in the paper, too. Gen. 49, with Ruben dientified as the "beginning of my strength." I mean, he's clearly talking here about the idea that Ruben is the guy who produces the strength and all that. So, there are a couple examples that seem like mis-classification.

Also, how can anybody insist that Col. 2:10 is partitive instead of a genitive of subordination? That has Jesus being a part of the evil powers, which seems to be a heterodox notion, even for JWs.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

I'm already bored with this post I am writing.

If a firstborn is a manifestation of generative power, then he is not that power or a part of that power. No more than a demonstration of anger is the same thing as the anger or a part of the anger. So I don't see how this fixes the problem, which is that Ruben is not a part of his father's power.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

I don't know anyone who was a sperm.

Seriously, can you substantiate the claim that the ancient Jews figured strength had parts? Honestly? Do you think strength has parts? It's got sources (which would be genitive of production), but pieces parts?

Partitive suggests the thing can be split into actual parts. "Some of the leaves," is a great example, isn't it? We can split the leaves into lots and lots of little leaves which are pieces of the group.

But come on, strength?

If you don't like a genitive of producer, perhaps you'd prefer a genitive of production: Ruben is the first caused by his strength, maybe.

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

The thing you're missing here, which is something I discuss in the paper I'm working on relating to prototokos (firstborn), is that with these types of genitive statements, you cannot always be as literal as you are trying to be right now. By this I mean that when we find prototokos or arche in a genitive statement, the group in which it is considered partitive is often indicated by the genitive noun without being explicitly stated.

For example, in saying that Eliphaz is the protokos of Esau, we know Eliphaz really is the prototokos and first partitive member of a group, but the group is not Esau, it is Esau's children. Thus the group in which the protokos is considered partitive is implied by "Esau," but that group is not explicitly stated.

That is the same thing we have going on here with Ruben being called the beginning of his father's (generative) strength. You are trying to argue that this arche is not partitive because it is not literally a piece of strength. The problem is that the (generative) "strength" indicates the group in which the arche is partitive implicitly. When one refers to the beginning of one's generative strength, the implied group is those resulting from that generative strength, the resulting examples or instances of that strength, namely that one's children. Thus, when one is identified as the beginning of his father's generative strength, the connection being made is to the group of ones resulting from that generative strength, whether actual or potential. The beginning, or arche, is the first member or part of that implied group. This meaning is clear in Genesis 49:3, where Ruben being called the beginning of his father's strength is placed in direct apposition to Ruben being called his father's firstborn. The same partitive relationship to Jacob's children is intended for both prototokos and arche.

HeKS

[Sulla]

Well, then, this is an example where the genitive is not partitive, then. You know, one of the genitive classes Wallace discusses is the possessive genitive. The examples are like this: "slave of the high priest." It has a related case, the genitive of relationship, with examples that go like this: "the sons of Zebedee."

Thus, this firstborn of Esau isn't partitive at all, it's a genitive of relationship. You are trying to force-map this relationship into something partitive by changing the statement to say "firstborn of Esau's children," (which is partitive) when the statement is "firstborn of Esau," (which is a genitive of relationship).

So, look, Ruben is the first thing of a bunch of things that are caused by the power of his father. Wallace categorizes this as a genitive of production: the first of things brought about by his power. You nearly stumble into this observation by saying that "the implied group is those resulting from that generative strength."

That's exactly it! That's what makes it a genitive of production as opposed to a partitive genitive.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

The we agree that the genitive is not partitive of power -- Ruben is not a part of the power, he is a part of something else, namely: things brought about by that power. That makes the genitive NOT partitive but, rather, a genitive of production.

The things brought about by his power are not his power. This is precisely the same observation I made with the firstborn of Esau. There, the firstborn is NOT partitive of Esau, but partitive with something else; the firstborn is a genitive of relation to Esau, not partitive.

Now, if the statement was, "beginning of the things made by my power," then we have a partitive genitive all day long. If the statement was, "the firstborn of Esau's children," then we have partitive genitives as far as the eye can see.

But that's not what the sentences say.

[HeKS]

We agree to a point. Where I think your treatment is deficient is in that you are making a hyper-literal distinction between the explicit words the person speaks and the obvious and necessary meaning of those words.

If you get hyper-literal, then sure, a child is not a piece of ability. However, in attempting this kind of reading to say that the child is merely an expression of the generative strength and not part of it, you're making a distinction that ignores the clear and necessary meaning of the statement and that is too literal for its own good. You see, there are not multiple methods of expressing generative strength, so that children are merely AN expression of it. They are the ONLY expression of it. A reference to generative strength is necessarily a reference to children. Generative strength only exists and is apparent in the existence of children. It is only demonstrated and proven to exist by the existence of children. They are the sole manifestation and proof of generative strength. As such, the statement, "the beginning of my (generative) strength," is the semantic equivalent of "the beginning (or first) of my children." The former statement means the latter statement and it will mean that every single time. Thus, "generative strength" is the semantic equivalent of "children". The difference is that it is a more poetic and expressive way of making the statement, but the meaning is identical.

Of course, you will notice that the latter statement is clearly a partitive genitive. The former is its semantic equivalent. By "(generative) strength", you take Jacob to mean his ability to produce children. I say he speaks poetically or expressively of the children he has produced.

In like manner, while Christ is called "the power of God," I don't take that to mean he is literally God's power or ability. Rather, he is an instance and example of God's power, the highest of such examples, both in the sense of being the preeminent example of what God accomplishes by his power and in demonstrating how God uses his power. But in either case, in calling Christ the power of God, "power" is not a reference to God's ability but to an example of his ability.

By trying to make a clean break between the types of statements found in Gen 49:3 and a partitive genitive construction, you are doing a disservice to the obvious meaning of the text and ignoring instances like 1 Cor 1:24 that clearly demonstrate a reference to "power" or "strength" can actually be a reference to an example or instance of power or strength rather than the general ability.

Gen 49:3 is made a genitive of production rather than a partitive genitive only by your insistence that, in using the word "strength", Jacob means his general ability rather than the product of that ability. This is not a necessary reading, as there is precedence for such language to be a reference to the product of an ability or characteristic rather than the ability or characteristic itself.

But beyond all this the point remains that these types of genitive statements, whether strictly classified as partitive genitives or not, carry a clear and necessary indication of a partitive relationship by necessary implication and the caveats you attempt to apply here do not apply to Rev 3:14, which explicitly states the group in which the arche is partitive, thus being a partitive genitive even by strict classification.


EDIT:

Just a quick additional note I forgot to include. In identifying Gen 49:3 as a genitive of production by interpreting the "strength" to be a reference to the general ability, we are causing the text to necessarily raise a question. As a gen. of production, we ought to understand Jacob's statement as: "the beginning produced by my (generative) strength."

With this reading, we must necessarily ask, "What beginning? The beginning of what? In other words, by identifying this statement as a genitive of production, we are forced to ask the very question that the statement is intended to answer. Jacob says, "beginning of X," we have to say, "Yes, but beginning of what?"

Like first and firstborn, beginning naturally indicates a partitive connection. By reading Jacob's reference to "strength" as being a reference to the product of the strength rather than the general ability, which has precedence, we have a partitive genitive where the statement means (and is the semantic equivalent of), "The beginning of my (children)," and we need not go on to ask what the statement itself intends to answer.

So it seems to me that Gen 49:3 might look like a genitive of production at first glance, but it actually makes more sense as a partitive genitive upon closer inspection.

HeKS

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Don't miss my comments above but here is what I said about Col. 2:10

It is not a counter examples as it is not arche followed by a genitive. "Arche" in this case is the following genitive to the word "head" which means that "head" is partitive of "principality". You're backwards here.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Sulla,

I seem to be having a very hard time getting you to understand what I'm ACTUALLY saying versus what you seem to want to think I'm saying.

You say Gen 49:3 is a genitive of production BECAUSE strength is an ability that doesn't have parts. Thus, in order for this verse to be an example of a genitive of production, "strength" has to MEAN "abiliy to produce children" in this verse, so that the meaning of the statement, "the beginning of my strength," is "the beginning produced by my ability to produce children."

What I'm trying to tell you is that there is precedence for using words like power, strength, wisdom, etc, to MEAN the product of those abilities or characteristics rather than the abilities or characteristics themselves. In such cases, the word "power" or "strength" is a direct reference to one or more examples or products of power or strength and NOT to the general ability or characteristic of power or strength.

If this is the case in Gen 49:3, as clearly seems to be the case based on the obvious and necessary meaning of the statement along with the use of a term like "beginning", which naturally carries partitive implications, then Gen 49:3 is NOT a genitive of production, it's a genuine partitive genitive. The classification depends on the contextual meaning of "strength" in this verse. If it's a reference to ability, then it is technically a genitive of production that necessarily implies a particular partitive relationship for the arche. On the other hand, if it is a reference to the products of the ability, which, again, has precedence, then it is a partitive genitive.

In footnote 89 on page 105 of his book, Wallace describes his own discussion of this classification of a genitive of production as "admittedly in seminal form" and doesn't even provide definite examples (he lists all examples as "possible"). You, on the other hand, seem to be pounding your fist on the table pretty hard that this is definitely a genitive of production while ignoring those factors that demonstrate it could very well be an actual, legitimate partitive genitive.

Also, it will not do to dissemble as you have in talking about how Ruben is the beginning of many things and might be the beginning of this or that. The statement has one necessary partitive implication and meaning: that Ruben is the first of Jacob's children. This is obvious on its own, but its placement in apposition to Jacob calling Ruben his firstborn makes this meaning impossible to mistake.

Your genitive of production reading creates a kind of Who's On First merry-go-round of trying to figure out what the arche is actually the beginning of. It has Jacob saying Ruben is the beginning OF his generative strength - which implies a partitive relationship - but meaning Ruben is the beginning produced by his generative strength, which leaves us asking, "But what is it the 'beginning' of?" to which Jacob responds "Like I said, the beginning OF my generative strength." "Yes," we reply, "but what is it the beginning OF?" At which point somebody slaps someone.

HeKS

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Sulla,

As I said, you're backwards on this example. Jesus is the "head" in that sentence, not the arche. This is not an example of what you want to argue at all.

Also you are still missing the point of Genesis 49:3. You know and I know the word there means "beginning". Do you not understand that the word "beginning is partitive by nature. It's like saying the first of something. It is naturally partitive. You have not answered exactly what Rueben is the beginning OF. He is clearly the beginning OF something in that statement. That necessitates a partitive nature to the word by the very fact that it means beginning. That's what you're missing in this example. "Beginning" is partitive by the very nature of the meaning of the word, THEREFORE, whatever other genitive you want to apply to this, you can not remove the partitive genitive from that phrase.

Regards,
Rotherham[/quote]

[Sulla]

I take your point about Col. 2.

We do not know that the word in Gen. 49 means beginning; you know as well as I the various shades of meaning associated with that word in both the Greek and in the English equivalent. Besides which, it is not really always partitive of anything -- consider the passges in Revelation where God calls himself "the Beginning," we are sure that God is not really a part of anything or group you'd care to consider, I think.

It is easy to think of ways we can use the term "beginning" as a poetic or metaphorical term without it being partitive of anything.

Moreover, your insisting that I answer the question about what Ruben was the beginning of seem to show a misunderstanding of the genitive construct in this passage. What I have suggested is that we must not read this passage to say that Ruben is the beginning of some group of which he is a part. Rather, we must read the passage to say that Ruben is the first produced by the reproductive strength of his father.

The standard explanation of the use of the partitive genitive is something like identifying the whole of which the substantive is a part of. So, it is entirely mistaken to think that the genitive is paritive when the noun doesn't have parts.

Thus, I could refer to my wife as the "beginning of my love," but that doesn't make the genitive partitive. If I write a first novel I could call it the "beginning of my inspiration" without using a partitive genitive. In either case we could, if we were feeling particularly wooden and immune to nuance, insist that these phrases really mean "beginning of a time period when I was in love" and "beginning of a bunch of things I wrote."

And, of so, then the way to express those ideas with a partitive genitive is to say, "beginning of the time I was in love," and "beginning of the things I wrote." It is specifically by using a different grammatical construct than a simple partitive genitive that I would be expressing a different idea. And I am suggesting that it would be wrong to take the most wooden and soulless reading possible, supply the grammatical structure for that hypothetical phrase, and then turn around and claim that you've found the grammatical structure for the actual phrase.

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,



We do not know that the word in Gen. 49 means beginning; you know as well as I the various shades of meaning associated with that word in both the Greek and in the English equivalent.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well we have choices that we have discussed. It’s either ruler or beginning as we have already determined, or you could appeal to source which is a completely unattested meaning of the word. The only one that even fits is beginning.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Besides which, it is not really always partitive of anything

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I think we will see that this is not correct as we continue.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

-- consider the passges in Revelation where God calls himself "the Beginning," we are sure that God is not really a part of anything or group you'd care to consider, I think.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Actually this example demonstrates our point perfectly. Arche, when used as the beginning, is always used as the beginning of something in relation to time or in relation to a class of things, or a series. The fact that Almighty God is called the beginning AND the end, tells us he is indeed partitive of the class of Almighty God but he is the only one in that class. That phrase is simply a way of expressing God’s unique existence. He is the first and the last in the class of Almighty.

Thayer’s lexicon confirms that the title “beginning and end” is used in the sense of the first person in a series, in this case, the series of Almighty God, where there is but one.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


It is easy to think of ways we can use the term "beginning" as a poetic or metaphorical term without it being partitive of anything.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Such as? The question that begs for an answer as soon as you designate someone as a “beginning”, is “beginning of what?”, which the subsequent answer always makes it partitive, even poetically.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Moreover, your insisting that I answer the question about what Ruben was the beginning of seem to show a misunderstanding of the genitive construct in this passage. What I have suggested is that we must not read this passage to say that Ruben is the beginning of some group of which he is a part. Rather, we must read the passage to say that Ruben is the first produced by the reproductive strength of his father.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
But you prove my point again by saying he is the FIRST thing produced by the following genitive. FIRST is again a naturally partitive word. You are claiming that the word rendered as genital strength here really means “produced by genital strength”. That’s fine, but by saying he is the FIRST or the BEGINNING, he is therefore the of the class of things “produced by genital strength”. There is no escaping the partitive nature.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The standard explanation of the use of the partitive genitive is something like identifying the whole of which the substantive is a part of. So, it is entirely mistaken to think that the genitive is paritive when the noun doesn't have parts.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It doesn’t have to have parts in the case of a mass noun. But it is still partitive of whatever that mass noun represents.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Thus, I could refer to my wife as the "beginning of my love," but that doesn't make the genitive partitive.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Sure it does, the beginning of your love is definitely a part of your love. Just because love is a mass noun does not mean that something can’t be a part of what the mass noun designates.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


If I write a first novel I could call it the "beginning of my inspiration" without using a partitive genitive.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
not true at all. The beginning of your inspiration is definitely PART of your inspiration. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


In either case we could, if we were feeling particularly wooden and immune to nuance, insist that these phrases really mean "beginning of a time period when I was in love" and "beginning of a bunch of things I wrote."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And that is exactly what those things mean. There’s nothing wooden about it.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And, of so, then the way to express those ideas with a partitive genitive is to say, "beginning of the time I was in love," and "beginning of the things I wrote." It is specifically by using a different grammatical construct than a simple partitive genitive that I would be expressing a different idea. And I am suggesting that it would be wrong to take the most wooden and soulless reading possible, supply the grammatical structure for that hypothetical phrase, and then turn around and claim that you've found the grammatical structure for the actual phrase.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
None of what you have stated here has nullified or shown in any way that the beginning of something does not have to part of that which it begins. It is always, in some fashion or another, mass noun or count noun, a part of that which it is the beginning of. You have not demonstrated an exception and I can think of none.

I believe point three is waiting.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

I still have a few comments to make on point two. I'll try to get to them tonight.

HeKS

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

I have a few comments about your latest submission but I'll wait for Heks response first. No reason to do double duty if there is no need.

Regards,
Rotherham

[HeKS]

I hope to get to this today, if possible. I've been running around all over town the past two days so I haven't had any time.

Sorry for the delay, Sulla.

Take care,
HeKS

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

The distinction between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you are here talking about an overall metaphorical or idiomatic meaning to the statement while I'm talking about the idiomatic use of a word.

I agree that saying an entire phrase is metaphoric or idiomatic doesn't affect the classification of the genitive. However, the idiomatic use of a particular word CAN affect the classification of the genitive, because the idiomatic use of the word playing the role of the genitive substantive can actually be a direct reference to something that does or can have parts and in which the head noun is partitive.

Let's say we have a word, X.
X is not generally considered capable of having parts according to its normal usage.

We have another word, Y.
Y, on the other hand, is capable of having parts according to its normal usage.

If X is used idiomatically to mean Y, then X stands in for Y. X means Y. For the purposes of the statement, X is Y. For the purposes of the statement, X is not X.

Do you understand the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying in your last post? Abstract nouns can be used idiomatically to refer to concrete nouns. When this happens, you can have a partitive genitive even when the genitive substantive is an abstract noun, because the abstract noun is being used idiomatically as a concrete noun.

Also, as I've already said, I think you're being too literal, because it's quite common for people to speak partitively of abstract things like confidence, love, strength, etc., and when they do, nobody is confused.

Take care,
HeKS

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

I am sure Heks will have more to say, (edit: see his response right above) but I think you keep making the same mistake. You keep claiming that I am making a strictly grammatical point in relation to arhce followed by a genitive and such is not the case. Grammar does not necessitate that arche, when it is followed by a genitive, must be partitive. What I am saying is it simply IS according to all the examples found in scripture. Based on the quote that I made of Wallace, he stated that a significant SEMANTIC statement should not be made without numerous examples.

The argument I have presented for arche followed by a genitive is a significant semantic statement based upon all scriptural examples which consistently show the use of one word that is found in a particular grammatical syntax. That is not purely just a grammatical argument, it is semantical based on grammatical examples. And every time we see arche followed by a genitive, it always means FIRST, either in time or in a series. The examples you offer to counter that do not really do that because in none of those examples is the meaning of the word arche changed in reference to the following genitive. The fact that the word still only means FIRST necessitates that the following genitive be partitive even if it could also be viewed as the producer of the arche. The production factor does not negate the partitive aspect in regards to the word arche.

In Genesis 49:3 it all depends on what you insist the word rendered as "strength" denotes and connotes. If the word denotes strength but connotes an example of the strength, then the word arche in that phrase is still partitive. Proof of that is the fact that a beginning has to be the beginning OF something, it does not stand alone without a relationship to something else. You can try and say that the focus group of the beginning is implied and not stated in that sentence but since the only thing we have in that sentence that is pointed to by the arche is "strength", then it is entirely natural to look at the word as connoting an EXAMPLE of that strength in order to complete the natural partitive nature of arche.

Your examples do not accomplish what you want them to. If you take a strict denotation of the word without the use of connotation, you could have an argument, but there is no necessity to do so, and the natural way to look at that because of the use of "beginning" is to look for the group it is the beginning of, which can be found in the connotation of the word strength, connoting an EXAMPLE of that strength.

Even if one would concede a pure genitive of production, it does not change the meaning of arche in that sentence. It still leaves you with the full problem presented at Revelation 3:14, that the Son is the FIRST of creation, either in rrelation to time or in relation to a series, in this case, both.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

HeKS,

Perhaps, but I don't think this applies to our examples. The metaphor is pretty straightforward, isn't it? The idea that strength is referring to procreative strength/ life strength is easily translated into lots of different languages, isn't it? You hardly have to be a native speaker to understand the meaning of the metaphor, so I can't see why you want to insist this is a special case. What makes you suppose this isn't simply a case where the abstract term stands for, and expands the understanding of, some concrete set?

"Hang fire" is an idiom -- it doesn't make sense when translated or as a metaphor. Strength standing in for "children" (even if that is the limit of the meaning which, as I have said, it is not) is not remotely idiomatic. It's metaphorical because the entire point of the word is to draw the comparison between the abstract attribute, strength, and the concrete example. Since this meaning is easily derived from the direct translation of the word itself, it is hard to see how it counts as an idiom.

Moreover, we still have the example from Hebrews that has the same problem -- confidence is abstract. You aren't going to argue that is idiomatic, are you?

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

I know you are not talking to me, which to me is immature, but there is no problem with Hebrews 3. The beginning of one's confidence is when they first started to have confidence. If it did not involve confidence, why would Paul want them to hold fast to that beginning? The very fact that Paul wants them to hold fast to that beginning proves that it includes confidence. Therefore, the beginning is partitive of the mass noun, confidence, whether it is abstract or not.

As far as your examples of Genesis 49:3 and the like one in Deuteronomy, I have explained that the beginning in those sentences speaks to what is connoted by the word strength, which one of the lexical meanings is procreative power. Beginning requires a group that it belongs to as that beginning. In this case the beginning points at the word rendered regenerative power or procreative strength. The most natural way to take that is that the word beginning speaks to that which is connoted by the word "regenerative strength", and the context leaves no doubt as to what is connoted by that word, that being the firstborn son. It speaks to the connotation of that mass noun rather than just the abstract denotation.

I think that about covers what you thought were exceptions but aren't.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,

Let's talk about Hebrews 3. Let's say that my confidence starts here * and continues to here #. In between that we have a line where my confidence existed. We would have something like this on a graph *------------------------# Please tell me why * could not be considered part of my confidence?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Because you are talking about the time when you had confidence and not your confidence. These are two different things, right?

I suggest that abstract things like faith, love, hate, envy, confidence, strength, anger, kindness, etc., don't have parts. Yo can't disassemble love the way you can disassemble a bookshelf from Ikea; you can't count your faith like you count leaves on a tree; you can't take two cups of anger like you can take two cups of water; you can't have ten minutes of envy like you can time. You keep wanting to talk about the time period when we possessed these attributes as if it were the same thing as the attribute. It is not the same thing.

If he had said the "beginning of the time when we had confidence," then he would be using a partitive genitive. But he did not. Stop me if you've heard this before.

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

The thing you are missing in all these examples is you do not seem to understand or want to appreciate the difference between denotation and connotation. Do you believe that the scriptures never employ and address the connotative element of a noun?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Rest assured, please, that I grasp the distinction between connotation and denotation.

For my part, I shall assume you grasp the insight that abstract things do not have parts. I see that you do not understand the process by which an author might invite the reader to draw a comparison between a concrete example of a thing created by one of his attributes and the attribute itself (as in: the first of my inspiration). Or, for that matter, a comparison between a concrete thing which causes an attribute to be more clearly manifested (beginning of my love).

I don't think that's a problem I can fix, but I supppose most people immediately see that the phrases obviously don't mean to suggest the concrete examples are a part of a thing that has no parts. These are phrases describing a relationship between the cause of -- or the effect of some attribute like strength or love or confidence.

But, again, it is easy to think of examples. "She is the beginning of beauty," obviously doesn't make use of a partitive genitive here, since the relationship is not of a part to a whole. Instead, the relationship is casual in nature -- she either causes beauty or else is caused by beauty. "To fear God is the beginning of wisdom," clearly intends to convey a casuative relationship rather than claim that wisdom might be broken down into component parts and numbered.

[Rotherham]

hello Sulla,

You didn't answer the question. Do you agree that the scriptures can grammatically address a connotation rather than a denotation? We have to solve that before we can progress to the rest of your argument.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

While you are thinking about the question above, I have another one for you.

In regard to Hebrews 3:14.

Notice the syntax: For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

What in that sentence does Paul want them to hold steadfast? What does the word HOLD connect to in that sentence?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

Sulla,

If you are strying to say that she is the beginning of beauty in the sense that she is the origin, which means source, then your argument does not address the problem at hand, because the words that we are dealing with never meaning origin or source. As I have stated, I have not seen this meaning represented in scripture or in secular works. It may exist somewhere outside of scripture and I have not seen it, but that is irrelevant to the point made, which is it does not occur in scripture.

Therefore, when I addressed your example, I am addressing it according to the knowledge that it can not mean origin or source, because the words in question do not mean that. THEREFORE, if we look at your example and we eliminate the unattested meaning of SOURCE or ORIGIN, then the word "beginning " has to address a connotation of the word beauty, and THAT is what I addressed and THAT is what I explained to you.

You think it ignorant because it ignores the ENGLISH meaning that beginning can have which is SOURCE or ORIGIN. The thing you forget is that the words we are talking of, arche and reyshith do NOT mean ORIGIN or SOURCE in the scriptures. EVER. There are no examples that can prove that meaning. They do not exist in scripture. So what good does it do us to talk about the ENGLISH meaning of BEGINNING as ORIGIN or SOURCE, when that is not relevant to the argument at hand?

you are making the same mistake with Heks. You can't look up beginning in an English dictionary and use that to determine what arche and reyshith mean in their respective languages. Surely you know that.

Regards,
Rotherham

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

I notice it has been about 9 days since the last post in this thread and 10 days since your last response.

Perhaps some real world issues are causing you delay. Do you need more time before you can prepare a response? I just want to make sure you intend to continue with the discussion.

I hope all is well.

Take care,
HeKS

[Rotherham]

Sulla stated the following as his point three against the presented article:

Point 3: Changing Rules

When Rotherham is making his points, he feels justified in citing evidence from the LXX version of Genesis, various historical books, other gospels, whatever. But when defending against the idea that arche means something like “ruler,” suddenly the test that matters is whether St. John uses the word in this particular way. Of course, there is not enough evidence is the writings of John to make any kind of case regarding the use of arche with a genitive phrase, so Rotherham appeals to whatever places he finds such a construct, but relying on that observation would have made a much shorter paper.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I did not appeal to historical books and/or OTHER gospels in letting scripture interpret scripture. I have appealed to scripture consistently as the guideline for interpretation. I have not ommited any examples from the Greek NT so there is no picking and choosing of examples. They are all considered. The fact that John every where else consistently uses arche as beginning in reference to time or a series, and the fact that he consistently uses archon as ruler, with many examples to demonstrate both give the Bible student a trusted and attested avenue of interpretation. Since the Trinity doctrine is nowhere taught in the scriptures, and unless appeal is made to "special" language and meanings of words it is not even implied, there is no reason to interpret Rev. 3:14 otherwise. Preconception, presupposition and bias is what drives the Trinitarian interpretation, not scripture.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

In any case, the idea that John’s usage of the word eleven times in one way precludes a different use on the twelfth is facile. Look, I might write a thousand times about my local bank, the banking system, my trip to the bank to get some cash, the bank that sold my mortgage, the teller at the bank… But when I say I will go down to the river and fish in the shade on the bank, it is obvious that I am simply using another of the common definitions of the word. Yet it is precisely the entire of context that Rotherham has excluded from his analysis – indeed, that he has de-legitimized in his polemic.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
To state that the scriptures do not attest that meaning and usage is entirely true. For those who trust the scriptures to interpret scriptures to the extent that they can, the scriptures do not support that meaning and usage. Trinitarianism must invent special meanings, grammatical anomalies and philosophical models which are no where spoken of in the Bible in order to hold on to their doctrine. The Unitarian view never has to appeal to these oddities but is entirely supported by the natural use of words and grammar as found in the Bible. The fact that there are numerous examples to demonstrate John's use of arche and archon should be noteworthy to the Bible student who is sensitive to the scriptural indications. As I stated in the article, IF we rely on scriptural pattern and precedent to be our interpretational guide, then thereis no other way to read Rev. 3:14 except that the Son was the the first thing created. If one does not wish to rely on scriptural pattern and precedent then that is surely their choice, but since interpretation belongs to God and we should test teachings to see if they originate with God, not relying upon Biblical pattern and precedent but upon extrabiblical philosophies and grammatical and lexical anomalies is not how one arrives successfully at the truth.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

Glad to have you back. I hope all is well.

Before I get to addressing your latest points, I thought it would be useful to summarize where we're at so far with your latest post.

Originally, you said that while it was possible for count nouns and even mass nouns to be spoken of partitively, it was not possible to do so for abstract nouns (and I seem to recall some questioning of whether our understanding of language usage was up to a grade school level). Seeing these rather common examples of abstract things being spoken of partitively, it seems you now recognize and acknowledge that it is possible to speak partitively of abstract things and that it is thus entirely possible to have a partitive genitive where the genitive substantive is abstract.

Is this correct?

Next, while there is still some discussion to be had in order to sort out the scope of idiomatic usage, you acknowledge that Gen 49:3 could be using "strength" metonimically and could thus be a partitive genitive. However, you think it is equally possible, if not more more possible, that this is a case of metaphor and thus not a partitive genitive.

Correct?

In the case of Hebrews, you now acknowledge that 'beginning of confidence' could be a partitive genitive but might also be a metaphorical reference to holding Christ to the end and not be a partitive genitive. (You say this would make three examples, but you only seem to mention two. What is the third? Revelation?)

Am I correct?

Finally, in summary, if I have understood you properly up to this point, it seems it would be fair to say that you have adjusted your position so that instead of saying the paper's argument and claim is obviously wrong and stupid, you would now say that the paper's argument and claim is possibly wrong, or at least possibly too strong.

Would you agree with all that? If so, I can move on and address the remainder of your points in this last post.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

Oh, HeKS, don't be boorish.

When I said there was a misunderstanding at the middle school level, I was talking about Rotherham. So, you see, I wasn't saying anything about "our" (meaning the plural "your")understanding of language at all, unless there is some hypostatic union between the two of you. For the record, that abuse was heaped on Rotherham for insisting that the phrase, "She is the beginning of beauty," was definitely partitive. If you want to stand with Rotherham on this particular question, I guess I could include you in the condemnation, though I'd honestly prefer not to.

Is there really more discussion to be had about idiomatic usage and metynomy? Honest? Haven't we already agreed that there are exceptions to Rotherham's rule? Or at least viable alternatives in these cases (I refer to Gen. and the similar construct in Deut. 21). Isn't that the meaning of your statement that the genitive in Genesis could be a genitive of producer? Haven't we agreed that not less than 10% of the cases in Rotherham's paper are questionable (counting Deut.)?

Doesn't that make the central argument of the paper null?

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

Rotherham, I don't expect you to ever change your mind about anything. Fortunately, that's not the task I have.

What we have are two cases where HeKS agrees that a genitive of producer are possible ways to read your examples, and a third where he may -- or may not -- ultimately agree. So, how many examples did yu provide? Twenty, twenty-one? Well, it turns out that two or three of these examples seem to be at odds with whatever rule you think you've found: maybe they are partitive, maybe not.

Maybes are not rules.

And therefore, you can't really claim that you have proved anything at all. Sure, most of the time these phrases will refer to a plain partitive relationship between the nouns. But there are some exceptions, around 10-%-15% of these examples are not really partitive, or at least are not clearly partitive. So, whatever the validity would have been if you had found 100% compliance with this rule, it doesn't exist now that you only have 85% compliance.

As for Hebrews, a simple google search will trun up lots of commentary that read the verse to say that we must hold the confidence we had at the beginning of our Christian lives. However, you should consult this little google book to see that the early commentators thought about the passage very much as I have suggested: the source of our confidence is faith.

A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews By Philip Edgcumbe Hughes

google books presents this observation on page 152. In any case, the reading this author most prefers is not "the first part of our confidence," but "the confidence we had at the first part of our Christian lives." Obviously, this is not partitive, though it is easy to find this reading with a little surfing in various places here and there...

So, your argument has been reduced to observing that most of the time, whenever we find a phrase "beginning of ______ ," we have a partitive genitive, therefore:" ...

Well, therefore, what, exactly? Most literate people can observe for themselves that phrases like, She is the beginning of beauty," are cases where the word "beginning" is clearly not partitive, certainly not within the English tradition as influenced by classical readings. So there is noting necessarily partitive about the word "beginning," or it's similar meanings. And while it really is possible to speak about abstract things as if they had parts, determining whether this is actually the case is decided based on the particular meaning of each use -- a thing you have manfully refused to to do.

But, like I said, I expect you to argue with me if I said the sky was blue -- because I said it. We have only so much time in this life, though, so unless HeKS has some comment on this point, I think we could move to the third main criticism.