Saturday, December 11, 2010

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 5


THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE: 

Chapter III

[SUBHEADING]: E. Conclusion 
 
...Some time in the 240’s CE, the Roman presbyter Novatian wrote a treatise, which was basically a commentary on the creed, and which was intended to show the errors of alternative christologies. This document has come down to us as the De Trinitate, the first truly theological work to come from the Roman church, written in the Latin language. While no early manuscript has survived, the current editions are based on the work of sixteenth century editors who had early manuscripts at their disposal. Although the editio princeps shows evidence of some theological “doctoring,” the earlier manuscripts survived long enough for later editors to correct the text. Today we can be reasonably certain that the latest editions accurately reflect the thought of Novatian. The only serious critique of the textus receptus [by Pamelius] is Petitmengin and Pelland’s reconstruction of the ending of the document, both versions of which are included in the appendices for the reader’s comparison. Novatian’s work was clearly accepted by the greater Roman church as consistent with the direction in which it was going. This fact is shown by his subsequent appointment to the office of “acting bishop” after the death of Fabian in January of 250. As the Roman church completed the transition from Greek to Latin in the third century, Novatian’s De Trinitate is a window into the thought of his time, in which we can see how one writer, who spoke for the church of Rome, interpreted the Scriptures, and defended his interpretation as the orthodox Catholic position. Having established the text, we can now turn to the language and content of that interpretation...” - (Chapter III, Pages 8-15, “Between Two Thieves”The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)

I disagree that we have a text that “accurately reflect[s] the thought of Novation”.

Mr Papandrea himself argues for a Trinitarian view of Novation and I believe his translation reflects a certain amount of bias in that regard as well.

Also we only Pelland's reconstruction to go on. Which as Mr Papandrea admits is conjectural in places, in other words reflects a certain amount of guess work. And he cannot be regarded as being totally beyond suspicion of Trinitarian bias either.

Nonetheless, his work is very interesting and welcome for it's honesty and expose of the Tampering and “tinkering” with Post-Biblical Christian writers texts.

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 4


THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE: 

Chapter III Page 8: 
 
[SUBHEADING]: D. The History of the Transmission of the Text 
 
...The editio princeps is the edition published by Martin Mesnart in Paris in 1545, in which the work was attributed to Tertullian.[25] In addition to erroneously placing Novatian’s De Trinitate in a collection of the works of Tertullian, Mesnart apparently edited the text, “correcting” passages which he thought were heterodox, or in which the Latin seemed awkward to him. The edition also contained errors, such as omissions due to homoioteleuton.[26] In 1550, Sigismond Gelenius, working from earlier manuscripts which are now lost, corrected the errors of Mesnart’s edition and restored the edited sections.[27] For our purposes it will suffice to give an example of a theological change made by Mesnart, and compare it to the restored text as preserved by Gelenius. In 16.3 of the text, Mesnart’s edition has:

(CORRUPTED LATIN TEXT): “...Sed si a Christo accepit quae nuntiet, non est homo tantum Christus, a quo accepit paracletus deus non minor, quoniam nec paracletus a Christo acciperet nisi Deus Christus esset: Christus ergo se Deum esse hoc ipso probat, quod ab eo accepit paracletus quae nuntiat, ut testimonium Christi divinitatis grande sit, dum ab illo paracletus sumit quae ceteris tradit...” 
 
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...But if He receives what He would announce from Christ, Christ is not only a man, [the one] from whom the Helper receives is no less divine, since the Helper would not receive from Christ unless Christ is God: therefore this proves Christ Himself, from whom the Helper receives what He would announce, to be God also, so that
[this] would be a great testimony to the divinity of Christ, that from Him the Helper obtains what He gives to others...”

For the same passage, Gelenius’ corrected text reads: 
 
(CORRECTED LATIN TEXT): “...Sed si a Christo accepit quae nuntiet, maior ergo iam paracleto Christus est, quoniam nec paracletus a Christo acciperet, nisi minor Christo esset. Minor autem Christo paracletus Christum etiam Deum esse hoc ipso probat, a quo accepit quae nuntiat, ut testimonium Christi divinitatis grande sit, dum minor Christo
paracletus repertus ab illo sumit quae ceteris tradit...”[28]

(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...But if He receives what He would announce from Christ, then Christ is greater than the Helper, since the Helper would not receive from Christ unless He were less than Christ. But the Helper [is] less than Christ, which proves Christ Himself, from whom He receives what He would announce, to be God also, so that [this] would be a great testimony to the divinity of Christ, that the Helper is discovered [to be] less than Christ, from whom He obtains what He gives to others...”

From the omitted parts which I have underlined, it is clear that Mesnart edited out those phrases which make the Spirit subordinate to the Son, thereby making the Trinity less hierarchical and more consistent with the western orthodoxy of his time. Gelenius corrected the text, but he still attributed the work as a whole to Tertullian.[29] The first extant edition to correctly assign authorship to Novatian is that of Jacques de Paméle (Pamelius), in 1579. It was Pamelius who added the chapter divisions.[30] Pamelius noted that the manuscripts he was working with confirmed Gelenius’ corrections of the text, and allowed him to make further corrections.[31] Diercks counts corrections of almost 80 errors or lacunae, some common to Mesnart and Gelenius, others only in Gelenius’ edition.[32] Fausset notes that in 31.10-12, Pamelius restored the following passage, which also seemto have been removed in the earlier editions for theological reasons:[33]

(CORRECTED LATIN TEXT): “...Si inuisibilis fuisset, cum inuisibili collatus par expressus duos inuisibiles ostendisset et ideo duos comprobasset et deos. Si incomprehensibilis, si et cetera quaecumque sunt Patris, merito, dicimus, duorum deorum quam isti confingunt controuersiam suscitasset. Nunc autem quicquid est non ex se est, quia nec innatus est...” 
 
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...If He had been invisible, He would have been compared with the invisible one, [and would] have been described [as] equal. He would have shown two invisible beings and for that reason He would also have demonstrated [the existence of] two Gods. If [He were] incomprehensible, or anything else that is rightfully of the Father, [then] we could say that He had stirred up the argument of two Gods which those [heretics] fabricate. But as it is, whatever He is, He is not from Himself, because He is not unborn...”

Again, to soften the subordination within the Trinity (which we will discuss at length later), the passage above was omitted, and the phrase: 
 
(CORRUPTED LATIN TEXT): “...Christus autem non innatus est...” 
 
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...On the other hand, Christ is not unborn...” 
 
was inserted in its place.[34] Other editions include that of E. Welchman in 1724, and J. Jackson in 1728. Welchman reordered some chapters which had apparently gotten out of order, and Jackson made a few more corrections, though both also confuse some issues and add their own errors at times. Others had published editions of the text as well, attempting to make further corrections and adding commentary; however, by this time the manuscripts were lost and all future editions were based on the ones mentioned above. Therefore the Pamelius edition serves as the textus receptus.[35] Finally, Giles Pelland, following Pierre Petitmengin, has reconstructed an alternate ending to that found in the textus receptus of Pamelius. It seems that Pamelius may have failed to completely restore the original text, or may himself have changed a few lines that sounded too subordinationist for his taste. Pamelius’ text makes the return of divine authority to the Father at Christ’s glorification a result of the “sharing of substance,” while the alternate text has it as a product of the “subordination of the Son.” Pelland maintains that this is more consistent with Novatian’s thought in the rest of the treatise, and therefore must be the original wording.[36] The following is a comparison of the textus receptus with Pelland’s reconstruction of De Trinitate 31.18-20: 
 
[PAMELIUS’ EDITION, THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS]: “...Cuius sic diuinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inaequalitate diuinitatis duos deos reddidisse uideatur. Subiectis enim ei quasi Filio omnibus rebus a Patre, dum ipse cum his quae illi subiecta sunt Patri suo subicitur, Patris quidem sui Filius probatur, ceterorum autem et Dominus et Deus esse reperitur. Ex quo dum huic qui est Deus omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta Filius accepta refert Patri, totam diuinitatis auctoritatem rursus Patri remittit. Vnde unus Deus ostenditur uerus et aeternus Pater, a quo solo haec uis diuinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa, rursum per substantiae communionem ad Patrem reuoluitur...”

(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...Thus [the Father’s] divinity is communicated, so that neither disagreement nor imbalance [within] the Divine would seem to cause two Gods to exist. For since all things have been subordinated by the Father to Him, as the Son, while He Himself is subordinated to His own Father with these things which are subordinate to Him, He is indeed demonstrated [to be] the Son of His Father, but He is discovered to be both Lord and God of everything else. Therefore, since all subjected things are handed over to this one who is God, and everything received [which is] subordinate to Him, He gives back to the Father, He defers all divine authority back again to the Father. From this, the true and eternal Father is shown [to be] the one God, the divine power having been sent out from Him alone, and communicated and extended in the Son, it has been reverted back to the Father again through the sharing of substance...”

[PELLAND’S RECONSTRUCTION]: “...Cuius sic diuinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inaequalitate diuinitatis duos deos reddidisse uideatur. Subiectis enim ei quasi Filio
omnibus rebus a Patre, dum ipse cum his quae illi subiecta sunt Patri suo subicitur, Patris quidem sui Filius et minister probatur, ceterorum autem et Dominus et Deus esse reperitur. Ex quo dum huic qui est Deus omnia substrata traduntur hic autem cum illis quae illi subiecta sunt subiciens se Patri, totam diuinitatis auctoritatem rursus ex subiectione sui Patri remittit. Vnus Deus ostenditur uerus et aeternus Pater, a quo solo haec uis diuinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa, rursum per subiectionem Filii ad Patrem reuoluitur...”

(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...Thus [the Father’s] divinity is communicated, so that neither disagreement nor imbalance [within] the Divine would seem to cause two Gods to exist. For since all things have been subordinated by the Father to Him, as the Son, while He Himself is subordinated to His own Father with these things which are subordinate to Him, He is indeed demonstrated [to be] the Son and servant of His Father, but He is discovered to be both Lord and God of everything else. Therefore, since all subjected things are handed over to this one who is God, yet He is subordinate to the Father with those things which are subject to Him, He defers all divine authority back again to the Father because of His subordination. From this, the true and eternal Father is shown [to
be] the one God, the divine power having been sent out from Him alone, and communicated and extended in the Son, it has been reverted back to the Father again through the subordination of the Son...”[37] - (Chapter III, Pages 8-15, “Between Two Thieves”The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)

[FOOTNOTE 21]: G. F. Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. 4, ed. G. F. Diercks (Turnholt: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1972), 2, esp. n. 2. There is one extant fragment in the codex Casinensis 384, which contains 36 words from chapter 18 of the De Trinitate.
[FOOTNOTE 22]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 37.
[FOOTNOTE 23]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19; De Viribus Illustribus 70.
[FOOTNOTE 24]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19. See also Moore, 17. This assumes that the document which Jerome refers to is in fact Novatian’s De Trinitate, and not Tertullian’s Aduersus Praxean, as Quarry had argued. See above, n. 5, 7.
[FOOTNOTE 25]: Diercks, “Novatien et son temps,” 2. See also Mohrmann, “Les origines de la latinité chrétienne à Rome,” 163-164, and DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 49-52.
[FOOTNOTE 26]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 3-4, n. 11.
[FOOTNOTE 27]: Diercks, “Novatien et son temps,” 2-3. See also Diercks, introduction to Novatiani Opera 4; and Weyer, Novatianus, “De Trinitate”: Über den dreifaltigen Gott, 16, n. 50. The manuscripts in question apparently belonged to a corpus Corbeiense.
[FOOTNOTE 28]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 3-4, (emphasis mine).
[FOOTNOTE 29]: Diercks, “Note sur le traite De Trinitate de Novatien,” Sacris Erudi 19 (1969-1970), 27, n. 4.
[FOOTNOTE 30]: Fausset, xxv.
[FOOTNOTE 31]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 4-5, n. 13. In addition to the manuscripts available to Mesnart and Gelenius, Pamelius mentions a codex Anglicus. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine,
[FOOTNOTE 32]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 5, n. 22-23.
[FOOTNOTE 33]: Fausset, xxv-xxvi, 119, n.16. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 98.
[FOOTNOTE 34]: Fausset, xxv-xxvi, 119, n.16.
[FOOTNOTE 35]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 5. Editions since Migne include those of Fausset (1909), Weyer (1962), and Diercks, (1972). Cf. Weyer, Novatianus, “De Trinitate”: Über den dreifaltigen Gott, 18, where Weyer criticizes Fausset’s edition as incomplete and inaccurate. Diercks’ text in vol. 4 of the Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina is the basis for my translation, which is included below as Appendix A.
[FOOTNOTE 36]: Giles Pelland, “Un passage difficile de Novatien sur I Cor. 15:27-28,” Gregorianum 66 (1985): 44-46. See also Pierre Petitmengin, “Ce que Pamèle connaissait de codex Johannis Clementis,” Revue des études augustiniennes 21 (1975): 266-272. Diercks follows Pamelius’s text for the ending of his edition, and this review of Diercks’ edition by Petitmengin includes notes on the manuscript behind the reconstructed text, codex Ioannis Clementis, which Welchman used to correct Pamelius’ text, but which he also had edited for theological reasons. I include a translation of Pelland’s reconstructed alternate ending as Appendix B.
[FOOTNOTE 37]: The translation is mine. The bold type and underlining for emphasis are also mine. Bold type represents an addition to Pamelius’ text, underlined text represents a replacement

IMPORTANT NOTE: So in the end, even the text that the Author and others use for his reconstruction of what was thought by THEM to be the original text, which was used also by the Author for his new translation, he has to admitt that Pamelius Textus Receptus cannot be trusted as being what the original actually said (because that is now lost) and being fully un-biased towards the Trinity.

To be continued. 

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 3

Novation "Tinkered with" continued.

NOVATION WORK POSTHUMOUS NAME CHANGE

THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE

Chapter III, Pages 2,3:

"...Still, the point is that for the Roman church, Novatian emerges as its first Latin systematizer of doctrine; and his treatise which is given the title De Trinitate is his magnum opus. The original title of the work was probably De Regula Veritatis, since that is how it begins, and also since, as we will see, the word Trinitas does not actually appear anywhere in the document. In fact, it is not so much a treatise on the Trinity per se, as it is an expansion of, or a commentary on, the creed; the Rule of Faith. Nevertheless, by the time of Jerome, around the turn of the fifth century, the title De Trinitate had already been attached to it.[3] Some speculate that it may have gotten this title during the Trinitarian controversy of the fourth century.[4] In fact, Jerome’s writings contain the only mention of a treatise by Novatian called De Trinitate.[5] The assumption that our document is this treatise is based on a comparison of the text with Novatian’s letters..."[6] - (Chapter III, “Between Two Thieves” The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)

[FOOTNOTE 3]: Hieronymus (Jerome) Aduersus Rufinum 2.19, De Viribus Illustribus 70. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 47- 49.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: For example, A. Casamassa, Novaziano (Rome: Dispense Universitarie, 1949), 163. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 49.
[FOOTNOTE 5]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19, and De Viribus Illustribus 70, in which Jerome calls Novatian’s De Trinitate an “epitome” of the work of Tertullian. But see J. Quarry, “Novatiani De Trinitate Liber: It’s Probable History,” Hermathena 10 (1899), 36, 41-42. Quarry believes that the document referred to in Aduersus Rufinum may actually have been Tertullian’s Aduersus Praxean, while he ascribes our De Trinitate to Hippolytus. Quarry also concludes that the heresy concerning the Spirit which is supposedly making use of the treatise in question is not pneumatomachianism, but is in fact Montanism, which he argues could be supported by elements in Tertullian. ... see Russell J. DeSimone, “Novatian,” introduction to Novatian the Presbyter, trans. Russell J. DeSimone, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 67, ed. T. P. Halton (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1974), 18;
[FOOTNOTE 6]: Hans Weyer, ed., Novatianus, “De Trinitate”: Über den dreifaltigen Gott, Testimonia, vol. 2 (Dusseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1962), 12, 14.

To be continued

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 2

More tampering with the ANF:

THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE

Chapter III Page 1:

[SUBHEADING]: A. Introduction

"...However, before we can examine the content of the text, we will need to survey the history of the transmission of the text itself, from the time of its writing to the publication of the current critical edition, as well as examine some of the textual problems associated with it. The most important of these problems, for our purposes, has to do with “corrections” to the text made by various editors over the course of time, which betray their discomfort with some of Novatian’s language concerning the relationships within the Trinity. It is precisely this language, perceived as too subordinationist for some, which will be a central part of our study of Novatian’s christology, and therefore the reconstruction of Novatian’s original text is of great importance." - (Chapter III, “Between Two Thieves” The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)

To be continued.

NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 1

NOVATION "TINKERED WITH"

Robert Grant on Novation:

"...Novatian finally ends his treatise with allusions to the passage in 1 Corinthians (15:24-28) that speaks of the final subjection of the Son to the Father, ‘that God may be all in all.’ His own stance is thus subordinationist and can be explained in reference to his reliance on Biblical passages. Apparently the work is difficult to interpret toward the end because a later orthodox reviser has tinkered with the text..." - (Gods and the One God. By Robert M. Grant. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986. Pages 159-160)

"Tinkered with the text..."

Not again!

JEROME SAID "ALL OF" ORIGENS "BOOKS" WERE "FULL OF" REFERENCES TO JESUS AS CREATED BEING

Now here's an interesting quote from Jerome in reply to Rufinus who re-doctored Origens, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and others writings to conform to the newly enforced standard of belief in his time.

Its a dialogue between a Valentinian Gnostic and Origen of Alexandria.

NOTE: Who argues upon the basis of SUBSTANCE and who argues for A CREATED BEING in this quote:

JEROME (347 to 420 C.E.): “...Now compare the words of Origen, which I have translated word for word above, with these which by him have been turned into Latin, or rather overturned; and you will see clearly how great a discrepancy between them there is, not only of word but of meaning. I beg you not to consider my translation wearisome because it is longer; for the object I had in translating the whole passage was to exhibit the purpose which he had in suppressing the earlier part. There exists in Greek a dialogue between ORIGEN AND CANDIDUS the defender of THE HERESY OF VALENTINIAN, in which I confess it seems to me when I read it that I am looking on at a fight between two Andabatian gladiators. CANDIDUS MAINTAINS THAT THE SON IS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER, falling into the error of asserting a Probolé or Production. On the other side, ORIGEN, LIKE ARIUS AND EUNOMIUS, refuses to admit that He is produced or born, lest God the Father should thus be divided into parts; BUT HE SAYS THAT HE WAS A SUBLIME AND MOST EXCELLENT CREATION WHO CAME INTO BEING BY THE WILL OF THE FATHER LIKE OTHER CREATURES. They then come to a second question. Candidus asserts that the devil is of a nature wholly evil which can never be saved. Against this Origen rightly asserts that he is not of perishable substance, but that it is by his own will that he fell and can be saved. This Candidus falsely turns into a reproach against Origen, as if he had said that the diabolical nature could be saved. What therefore Candidus had falsely accused him of, Origen refutes. But we see THAT IN THIS DIALOGUE ( ALONE ) ORIGEN ACCUSES THE HERETICS OF HAVING FALSIFIED HIS WRITINGS, ( NOT ) IN THE OTHER BOOKS ABOUT WHICH ( NO ) QUESTION WAS ( EVER ) RAISED. Otherwise, if we are to believe that all which is heretical is not due to ORIGEN but to the heretics, WHILE ALMOST ALL HIS BOOKS ARE FULL OF THESE ERRORS, nothing of Origen’s will remain, but everything must be the work of those of whose names we are ignorant..." - (Hieronymus – Apologia Adversus Libros Rufini; Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus; Addressed to Pammachius and Marcella from Bethlehem, a.d. 402. Book 2, Section 19, Page 512.)

[EMPHASIS ADDED]

Jerome clearly states that Origen taught and believed Jesus was "A CREATION ... LIKE OTHER CREATURES"

Jerome also shows he didn't follow the later idea of the Son being of the same SUBSTANCE of the Father, but that this was the BASIS OF THE ( GNOSTIC ) TEACHING AND ARGUMENT.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

CHRIST AS AN ANGEL BEFORE NICEA - PART (1)

(MARTIN WERNER): "...The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28),  not only angels,  but even men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without  according  them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37." - (Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, Page 140).

(LACANTIUS circa 240 to 320): "...In fine, ( OF ) ALL THE ANGELS, whom THE SAME GOD (FORMED) from his own breath, ( HE ) alone was (ADMITTED INTO) a participation of his supreme power, ( HE ) alone was (called) God. (FOR) all things were (THROUGH) him, and nothing was without him...” (Epitome 42).

(LACANTIUS circa 240 to 320): "...God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible (SPIRIT), whom He (called) His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself (INUMERABLE OTHER BEINGS, WHOM WE CALL ANGELS), - (THIS) FIRST-BEGOTTEN, however, was (THE ONLY ONE) whom He considered worthy of being (called) by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty. ... Assuredly He is the very Son of God, who by that most wise King Solomon, full of divine inspiration, spake these things which we have added: [520] , "God founded ["CREATED" (LXX)] me in the beginning of His ways, in His work before the ages. He set me up in the beginning, before He made the earth, and before He established the depths, before the fountains of waters came forth: the Lord begat me before all the hills; He made the regions, and the uninhabitable [522] boundaries under the heaven. When He prepared the heaven, I was by Him: and when He separated His own seat, when He made the strong clouds above the winds, and when He strengthened the mountains, and placed them under heaven; when He laid the strong foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging all things. I was He in whom He delighted: I was daily delighted, when He rejoiced, the world being completed." But on this account Trismegistus spoke of Him as "the artificer of God," and the Sibyl calls Him "Counsellor," because He is (ENDOWED BY GOD THE FATHER) with such wisdom and strength, (THAT GOD EMPLOYED) both His wisdom and hands in the creation of the world..." - (The Divine Institutes - Book IV: Chap. VI.--Almighty God Begat His Son; And the Testimonies of the Sibyls and of Trismegistus Concerning Him. Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional introductionary material and notes provided for the American edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.)

Compare Hebrews 1:4

(AUV-NT)  He had become as much superior  to the angels as the name He inherited   was superior to theirs 

(EMTV)  having become so much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

(ERRB) Being made so much better than the angels, inasmuch as he hath by inheritance obtained inherited a more excellent name than they.

(GSNT)  showing himself to be as much greater than the angels as his title is superior to theirs.

(IAV)  Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

(ISV)  and became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is better than theirs.

(Moffatt NT)  and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs.

(JMNT[EXPANDED TRANSLATION])   Being born so much better (more excellent) than agents (messengers), He has inherited (acquired by lot) a so much different name beyond (alongside of) them.

(LONT) being exalted as far above the angels, as the name he has inherited, is more excellent than theirs.

(Sawyer) being made as much greater than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.

(TCNT) having shown himself as much greater than the angels as the Name that he has inherited surpasses theirs.

(Clarke's Commentary on the Bible): "...So much better than the angels - ... The Jews had the highest opinion of the transcendent excellence of angels, they even associate them with God in the creation of the world, and suppose them to be of the privy council of the Most High; and thus they understand Genesis 1:26 : Let us make man in our own image, in our own likeness; "And the Lord said to the ministering angels that stood before him, and who were created the second day, Let us make man," etc. See the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. And they even allow them to be worshipped for the sake of their Creator, and as his representatives; though they will not allow them to be worshipped for their own sake..."

(Vincent's NT Word Studies): "...Being made so much better than the angels (τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων) ...Τοσούτῳ - ὅσῳ so much - as. Never used by Paul. Κρείττων better, superior, rare in Paul, and always neuter and adverbial. In Hebrews thirteen times. See also 1 Peter 3:17; 2 Peter 2:21. Often in lxx. It does not indicate here moral excellence, but dignity and power. He became superior to the angels, resuming his preincarnate dignity, as he had been, for a brief period, less or lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7). The superiority of Messiah to the angels was affirmed in rabbinical writings. He hath by inheritance obtained (κεκληρονόμηκεν) More neatly, as Rev., hath inherited, as a son. See Hebrews 1:2, and comp. Romans 8:17. For the verb, see on Acts 13:19, and see on 1 Peter 1:4. More excellent (διαφορώτερον) Διάφορος only once outside of Hebrews, Romans 12:6. The comparative only in Hebrews. In the sense of more excellent, only in later writers. Its earlier sense is different. The idea of difference is that which radically distinguishes it from κρείττων better. Here it presents the comparative of a comparative conception. The Son's name differs from that of the angels, and is more different for good. Than they (παρ' αὐτοὺς) Lit. beside or in comparison with them. Παρα, indicating comparison, occurs a few times in Luke, as Luke 3:13; Luke 13:2; Luke 18:4. In Hebrews always to mark comparison, except Hebrews 11:11, Hebrews 11:12..."

(Robertsons Word Pictures In The NT): "...Having become (genomenos). Second aorist middle participle of ginomai. In contrast with on in Heb_1:3. By so much (tosoutōi). Instrumental case of tosoutos correlative with hosōi (as) with comparative in both clauses (kreittōn, better, comparative of kratus, diaphorōteron, more excellent, comparative of diaphoros). Than the angels (tōn aggelōn). Ablative of comparison after kreittōn, as often. Than they (par' autous). Instead of the ablative autōn here the preposition para (along, by the side of) with the accusative occurs, another common idiom as in Heb_3:3; Heb_9:23. Diaphoros only in Hebrews in N.T. except Rom_12:6. Hath inherited (keklēronomēken). Perfect active indicative of klēronomeō (from klēronomos, heir, Heb_1:2), and still inherits it, the name (onoma, oriental sense of rank) of “Son” which is superior to prophets as already shown (Heb_1:2) and also to angels (1:4-2:18) as he now proceeds to prove. Jesus is superior to angels as God’s Son..."

(Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary):  "...Being made . better-by His exaltation by the Father (Heb 1:3, 13): in contrast to His being "made lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). ... He is "the Son of God" is a sense far exalted above that in which angels are called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 38:7)..."

[NOTE]: Nearly all of the above argue for a trinitarian view in the surrounding context of these comments.

Monday, November 29, 2010

COLOSSIANS 1:15 LITERAL INTERLINEAR READINGS

The interlinear readings below are literal translations, the word for word texts, taken from underneath the Greek text:


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 1:15 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
 
KINGDOM INTERLINEAR: "...who is the image of the God the invisible first-born of all creation..."

EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT: "...who is a likeness of the God of that unseen first-born of every creation..."

THE NEW GREEK ENGLISH INTERLINEAR: "...who is [the] image of the God{2} [ - ] invisible{1} [the] first-born of all creation..."

THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE BY JAMES GREEN: "...who is [the] image [ - ] of God the invisible [the] first-born of all creation..."

APOSTOLIC POLYGOT: "...who is the image of the unseen God, first-born of all creation..."

INTERLINEAR-BIBLE.ORG: "...Who is image of God invisible first-born of all creation..."

[FOOTNOTE]: {1} indicates word order in the Greek text, [  ] indicates a word added by the translator, [ - ] indicates ommision of a word, generally a definite article "the".



Heres a couple of translations taken from the old Syriac NT.

Dr. John Wesley Etheridge's translation of the Western Peshitto (1846-1849): "...who is the image of Aloha the unseen, and the first-born of all the creatures..."

[FOOTNOTE]: "Aloha" is a transliteration of the Syriac word for "God".

Dr. James Murdock's translation of the Western Peshitto (1852): "...who is the likeness of the invisible God, and the first-born of all creatures..."

Saturday, November 27, 2010

THE OLDEST GREEK TEXT OF MICAH 5:4 LXX "...THE NAME OF ( JEHOVAH ) HIS GOD..." HAS THE TETRAGRAMMATON IN ANCIENT HEBREW IN THE GREEK TEXT


Above is an image of the Greek MSS or manuscript (8HevXIIgr) also known as (Göttingen 943). 

NOTE THE THIRD AND FOURTH LINES IN PRINTED GREEK FROM THE BOTTOM

The Greek text is written with Hebrew/Aramaic forms of the divine name or Tetragrammaton right in the middle of the Greek text.

It does not substitute the Tetragrammaton with “Lord” or “God” as newer copies of the Septuagint do.

Hebrew    Transliteration    Strong's    English
וְעָמַ֗ד    ve·'a·mad    5975    will arise
וְרָעָה֙    ve·ra·'ah    7462    and shepherd
בְּעֹ֣ז    be·'oz    5797    the strength
יְהוָ֔ה    Yah·weh    3069    JEHOVAH
בִּגְאֹ֕ון    big·'o·vn    1347    the majesty
שֵׁ֖ם    shem    8034    of the name
יְהוָ֣ה    Yah·weh    3069    JEHOVAH
אֱלֹהָ֑יו    e·lo·hav;    430    his God
וְיָשָׁ֕בוּ    ve·ya·sha·vu    3427    will remain
כִּֽי־    ki-    3588    Because
עַתָּ֥ה    at·tah    6258    time
יִגְדַּ֖ל    yig·dal    1431    will be great
עַד־    ad-    5704    against
אַפְסֵי־    af·sei-    657    to the ends
אָֽרֶץ׃    a·retz.    776    of the earth

Young's Literal Translation of the Hebrew: "...And he hath stood and delighted in the strength of JEHOVAH, In the excellency of the name of JEHOVAH his God, And they have remained, For now he is great unto the ends of earth..."

Now compare this with the Modern Greek text and translations of the Septuagint:

Micah 5:4 ( MODERN ) Greek OT: Septuagint with Diacritics
καὶ στήσεται καὶ ὄψεται καὶ ποιμανεῖ τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ ἐν ἰσχύι κυρίου καὶ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ ὀνόματος κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτῶν ὑπάρξουσιν διότι νῦν μεγαλυνθήσεται ἕως ἄκρων τῆς γῆς

Charles Thomson's English Translation of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) Bible:
"...thren shall turn to the children of Israel. And they will stand i and look and the Lord will feed his flock with majesty; and in the glory of the name of the Lord their God they shall subsist; because they shall now be magnified to the ends of the earth..."

Brenton's English Septuagint (1851): "...And the Lord shall stand, and see, and feed his flock with power, and they shall dwell in the glory of the name of the Lord their God: for now shall they be magnified to the ends of the earth..."

THE HOLY ORTHODOX BIBLE THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT IN ENGLISH: "...And He will stand, and see, and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, and they shall dwell in the glory of the name of the Lord their God; for now they will be magnified to the ends of the earth..."



This is a Messianic text talking about Jesus - and who?

"...( HIS ) GOD..."

And who would that God of his be?


John 20:17 
"...MY FATHER and your Father and to ( MY ) GOD and your God..."

Matt 6:9 
"...( OUR ) FATHER in heaven let YOUR ( NAME ) BE SANCTIFIED..."

Eph 1:17 (The Translators New Testament): 
"...The glorious FATHER WHO IS THE GOD ( OF ) our Lord Jesus Christ..."

JEHOVAH


The references above show Jesus had a GOD:

1.) BEFORE he came to the earth as a man
2.) DURING his time on earth as a man
3.) AFTER he came to earth as a man

Thursday, November 25, 2010

ACTS 28:6(C) "...(A) god..." COMPARATIVE RENDERINGS

First of all it should be noted there are some textual variants for this verse. Though not affecting the meaning at all, just a difference in word order.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 28:6 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 28:6 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
ἔλεγον θεόν αὐτὸν εἶναι.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 28:6 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
 ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν.

Acts 28:6 Hebrew Bible
והם הוחילו אשר יצבה גופו או אשר יפל מת פתאם ויחילו עד בוש והנה לא קרהו כל אסון ויהפך לבם ויאמרו כי אלהים הוא׃

Interesting to note in the Hebrew versions of the NT it uses the plural (elohim) for the singular (theos).

Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
se dicebant eum esse deum

First some literal interlinear renderings:

ACTS 28:6(c) (KINGDOM INTERLINEAR - LITERAL TEXT):  
"...they were saying him to be (g)od ..."

ACTS 28:6(c)  (EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT-INTERLINEAR LITERAL TEXT): 
"...they said (a) (g)od him to be..."

ACTS 28:6(c) (THE NEW GREEK-ENGLISH INTERLINEAR NEW TESTAMENT (TYNDALE PUBLISHING) - INTERLINEAR LITERAL TEXT):  "...they were saying him to be (a) (g)od..."

ACTS 28:6(c) (ISA-INTERLINEAR LITERAL TEXT): 
"...they said (g)od him to be..."

ACTS 28:6(c) (THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE BY JAMES GREEN- LITERAL TEXT):  
"...they said (a) (g)od him to be..."

Tyndale Bible 1534 by William Tyndale
and sayde that he was a God.

New International Version (©1984)
and said he was a god.

New Living Translation (©2007)
 and decided he was a god.

English Standard Version (©2001)
and said that he was a god.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and began to say that he was a god.

International Standard Version (©2008)
and said he was a god.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
and said he was a god.

King James Bible
 and said that he was a god.

American King James Version
 and said that he was a god.

American Standard Version
 and said that he was a god.

Bible in Basic English
 they said he was a god.

Douay-Rheims Bible
 they said, that he was a god.

Darby Bible Translation
 they said he was a god.

English Revised Version
and said that he was a god.

Webster's Bible Translation
and said that he was a god.

Weymouth New Testament
and said that he was a god.

World English Bible
and said that he was a god.

Young's Literal Translation
 said he was a god.

The Bishops' Bible 1568 Matthew Parker editor
 and sayde that he was a God.

Coverdale Bible 1535 by Miles Coverdale
and sayde that he was a God.

The Emphasised Bible also called Rotherham Version 1902 by Joseph Rotherham
and began to say he was a god.

Mace New Testament 1729 by Daniel Mace
 and said he was a God.

Etheridge Translation 1849 by John Etheridge
 and said he was a god.

The Geneva Bible 1587 by William Whittingham
 and said, That he was a God.

The Great Bible also called Cranmer Bible 1540 Miles Coverdale editor
and sayde that he was a God.

Living Oracles 1835 by George Campbell, James MacKnight, and Philip Doddridge
they said he was a god.

Matthew's Bible 1549 by John Rogers
and said that he was a God.

Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745 by William Whiston
and said that he was a god.

Murdock Translation 1851 by James Murdock
 and said, that he was a god.

The New Testament: An American Translation 1923 by Edgar Goodspeed
and said that he was a god.

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 1865 by American Bible Union
and said that he was a god.

The New Testament: Revised and Translated 1904 by Adolphus Worrell
 they said that he was a god.

The New Testament Translated from the Original Greek 1858 by Leicester Sawyer
and said, He is a god.

The New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918 by Henry Anderson
and said that he was a god.

Noyes Translation 1869 by George Noyes
and said that he was a god.

Revised Version also called English Revised Version 1885 Charles Ellicott editor
and said that he was a god.

Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek 1902 by William Godbey
they said that he was a god.

Twentieth Century New Testament 1904 by Ernest Malan and Mary Higgs
and said that he was a God.

Wesley Version 1790 by John Wesley
and said he was a god.

The only version I could actually find that didn't translate "...(A) god..." Was the oldest:

Wycliffe Bible 1395 by John Wycliffe Acts Chapter 28:6 "...And thei gessiden that he schulde be turned `in to swellyng, and falle doun sudenli, and die. But whanne thei abiden longe, and sien that no thing of yuel was don in him, thei turneden hem togider, and seiden, that he was God..."

INTERLINEAR TEXTS OF PHILLIPIANS CHAPTER 2:1-11

PHILLIPIANS CHAPTER 2:1-11 GREEK TEXT

1 Εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ,
   εἴ τι παραμύθιον ἀγάπης,
   εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος,
   εἴ τις σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί,
2 πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαρὰν ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες, σύμψυχοι, τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες, 3 μηδὲν κατ' ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν, 4 μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι σκοποῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι.
5 τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, 10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, 11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

PHILLIPIANS CHAPTER 2:1-11 (KINGDOM INTERLINEAR - LITERAL TEXT):  "...[1] If any therfore encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any sharing of spirit, if any bowels and compassions, [2] fill you of me the joy in order that the very (thing) you may be minding, the very love having, together in soul, the one (thing) minding, [3] nothing according to contentiousness nor according to vain-glory, but to the lowly-mindedness one another considering (ones) having over of selves, [4] not the (things) of selves each (ones) looking at, but also the (things) of different (ones) each (ones). [5] This be you minding in you which also in Christ Jesus, [6] who in form of God existing not snatching he considered the (to-be) equal (things) (to) God, [7] but himself he emptied form of slave having taken, in likeness of men having become; [8] and to fashion having been found as man he made lowly himself having become obedient until death, of death but of stake; [9] through which also the God him put high up over, and he graciously gave (to) him the name the over every name, [10] in order that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those underground, [11] and every tongue should confess out that Lord Jesus Christ into glory of God Father..."

PHILLIPIANS CHAPTER 2:1-11 (EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT-INTERLINEAR LITERAL TEXT):  "...[1]  If any therefore comfort in Anointed, if any soothing of love, if any fellowship of spirit, if any bowels and compassions; [2] fulfil you of me the joy, so that the same thing you may think, the same love having, united ones in soul, the one thing minding; [3] nothing in strife or vain-glory, but in the lowliness of mind others esteeming exceeding yourselves; [4] not the things of yourselves each one regarding, but also the things of others everyone. [5] This for be desired by you which also in Anointed Jesus, [6] who in a form of God being, not a usurpation meditated the to be like to God, [7] but himself emptied, a form of a slave having taken, in a likeness of men having been formed, [8] and in condition being found as a man; humbled himself, having become obedient till death, of a death even of a cross. [9] Therefore also the God him supremely exalted, and freely granted to him a name that above every name; [10] so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of heavenlies and of earthlies and of underground ones, [11]  and every tongue should confess, that a Lord Jesus Anointed, for glory of God a Father..."

PHILLIPIANS CHAPTER 2:1-11 (THE NEW GREEK-ENGLISH INTERLINEAR NEW TESTAMENT (TYNDALE PUBLISHING) - LITERAL TEXT):  "...[1] If [there] any therfore, encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of [the] spirit, if any bowels (affection) and compassions [2] make-complete my - joy that the same-thing you think, the same love having, the one-thing thinking [3] [doing] nothing according to rivalry neither according to empty-conceit but - in-humility one-another esteeming above them-selves [4] not the-things of-themselves every-person looking at but also-[at]-the-things of others each person [5] [let] this - thinking be in you which [was] also in Christ Jesus [6] who in [the] form of God existing did not regard to be equal with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but he poured out [himself] [the] form of a slave taking in [the] likeness of men having been born [8] and in appearance having been found as a man he humbled himself having become obedient unto death, [and] a death that of(by) a cross [9] wherefore also - God him exalted and gave to him the name - above every name [10] that in(at) the name of Jesus every knee should bend of [beings] in heaven and on earth and under the earth [11] and every tongue should confess - [the] Lord [is] Jesus Christ, (to) [the] glory of God [the] Father..."

PHILLIPIANS CHAPTER 2:1-11 (ISA-INTERLINEAR LITERAL TEXT):  "...[1] If any then beside-calling in Anointed if any beside-close of-love if any communion of-spirit if any compassions and pities  [2] Fill-ye of-me the joy that the same ye-may-be-being-disposed the same love having together-souls the one being-disposed [3] Not-yet-one according-to (strife) or (empty-esteem) but to-the humility one-another deeming being-superior of-selves [4] No the of-selves each be-yet-nothing but and the of-different each [5] this for let-be-being-disposed in you which and in Anointed Jesus [6] who in form of-God belonging not snatching deems the to-be equal to-God [7] but self empties form of-slave getting in likeness of-humans becoming and to-figure being-found as human [8] he-makes-low self becoming obedient unto death death yet of-pale [9] thru-which and the God him over-heightens and graces to-him name the over every name [10] that in the name of-Jesus every knee should-be-bowing of-on-heavenlies and of-on-lands and of-down-terranean [11] and every tongue should-be-out-avowing that Master Jesus Anointed (into) esteem of-God Father..."

JESUS AS PERSONIFIED WISDOM PROVERBS 8:22-31

Heres some interesting support for identifying Jesus with the personified "Wisdom" of Proverbs 8:22-31.

The “Diatessaron of Tatian” (believed to be an early harmonization of the early accounts of the Gospels and originally written in Syriac in the mid-second century CE) makes the identification which is already clear from Matthew 23:34-36 and Luke 11:49-51 more explicit in Diatessaron Chapter 41, verse 1.

Here Jesus is recorded as speaking in the first person:

The Diatessaron of Tatian, Section Chapter 41, verse 1. “...I, the wisdom of God, send…” (J. Hamlyn Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Four Gospels Being the Diatessaron of Tatian [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1894], pages 205, 310).

The Diatessaron of Tatian, Section XLI. [1]: [2801] "...Therefore, behold, I, the wisdom of God, am sending unto you prophets, and apostles, and wise men, and scribes:  and some of them ye shall slay and crucify; and some of them ye shall beat in your synagogues, and persecute [2802] from city to [2] city:  [2803] that there may come on you all the blood of the righteous that hath been poured upon the ground [2804] from the blood of Abel the pure to the blood of Zachariah the son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the temple [2805]  and the altar.  [3] [2806] Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation..." (ANF 9 (Eerdmans/Hendrickson series), page 106, sec. 41.1.)
[FOOTNOTE 2801]:    Matt. xxiii. 34.
[FOOTNOTE 2802]:    cf. 8, 34.
[FOOTNOTE 2803]:    Matt. xxiii. 35.
[FOOTNOTE 2804]:    Or, earth.
[FOOTNOTE 2805]:    Or, sanctuary.
[FOOTNOTE 2806]:    Matt. xxiii. 36.

The scriptures Tation harmonises make for interesting comparison.

PARALELL ACOUNTS:

Matthew 23:34-36 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
[34]:
"...Διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω πρὸς ὑμᾶς προφήτας καὶ σοφοὺς καὶ γραμματεῖς· ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενεῖτε καὶ σταυρώσετε καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μαστιγώσετε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν καὶ διώξετε ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν· [35] ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυννόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου, ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. [36] ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἥξει ταῦτα πάντα ἐπὶ τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην..."

Matthew 23:34-36 (NRSV): "...Therefore I [Jesus] send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation..."

Luke 11:49-51 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
[49]
: "...διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους, καὶ έξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν καὶ διώξουσιν, [50] ἵνα ἐκζητηθῇ τὸ αἷμα πάντων τῶν προφητῶν τὸ ἐκκεχυμένον ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης, [51] ἀπὸ αἵματος Ἅβελ ἕως αἵματος Ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἀπολομένου μεταξὺ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τοῦ οἴκου· ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης..."

Luke 11:49-51 (NRSV): "...Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation..."

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Thursday, October 28, 2010

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH CALLED JESUS "THE FIRST (ONE) TO BE BORN OF ALL CREATION"

Ignatius of Antioch Long recension calls Jesus "...the first (one) to be born of all creation..."

Heres the ANF R&D version along with the Greek text:

GREEK TEXT: "...Στήκετε, ἀδελφοί, ἑδραῖοι ἐν τῇ πίστει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ ἀγάπῃ, ἐν πάθει αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναστάσει. πάντες ἐν χάριτι ἐξ ὀνόματος συναθροίζεσθε κοινῇ, ἐν μιᾷ πίστει θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ καὶ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως, κατὰ σάρκα δὲ ἐκ γένους Δαυίδ, ἐφοδηγούμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ παρακλήτου· ὑπακούοντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ ἀπερισπάστῳ διανοίᾳ, ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅ ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καθαρτήριον ἀλεξίκακον..." (Chapter XX. Ignatius of Antioch; Ephesians Long Version)

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 30-107-110 C.E.): "...Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, [625] through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,” [626] but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ..." (Chapter XX. — "Exhortations to steadfastness and unity" Ignatius of Antioch; Ephesians Long Version R&DT)
[FOOTNOTE 625]:    Literally, “by name.”
[FOOTNOTE 626]:    Col. i. 15.

And here is my translation:

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 30-107-110 C.E.): [REVISED VERSION] "...Take a stand, Brothers, firmly based in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in your love for him, in the sufferings he underwent and his resurrection. Together in undeserved kindness, out of the name you have in common, in the one faith of God [the] Father and of Jesus Christ His only begotten Son (πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως) "THE FIRST (ONE) TO BE BORN OF ALL CREATION", who was according to the flesh out of the genus of David, and be under the guidance of the Paraclete. In obedience to the overseer and the older men, have an undistracted mind, breaking the one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, an antidote, that we may not die, but live to God through Jesus Christ, purged of all evil..." (Chapter 20 Ignatius of Antioch; Ephesians Long Version MATT13T Revised 1/11/10 Re-Revised 1/11/10)

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 30-107-110 C.E.): [2nd REVISION]
"...Take a stand, Brothers, firmly based in the faith of Jesus Christ, and his love, in his sufferings and resurrection. May you share together in undeserved kindness out of the name you have in common, in the one faith of God [the] Father and of Jesus Christ His only begotten Son (πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως) "THE FIRST (ONE) TO BE BORN OF ALL CREATION", who was out of the family stock of David according to the flesh, and be under the guidance of the Paraclete. In obedience to the overseer and the older men, have an undistracted mind, breaking the one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, an antidote, that we may not die, but live to God through Jesus Christ, purged of all evil..." (Chapter 20 Ignatius of Antioch; Ephesians Long Version MATT13T Revised 1/11/10 Re-Revised 1/11/10)

After I translated the above I found William Whistons version, which is as follows:

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 30-107-110 C.E.): "...Stand fast, Brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in his love, in his passion, and in his ressurection. Do ye all assemble yourselves together in common, every one by name, in grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, and First-born of every creature ; but of the stock of David according to the flesh ; being conducted by the Comforter, in obedience to your Bishop and Presbytery, with an undivided mind, breaking one common loaf, which is the medicine of immortality ; a preservative that we may not dye, but live in God, through Jesus Christ: a purgative to expell all evil..." - (Williams Whistons Primative Christianity Revived Vol 1 - Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephessians (LONG VERSION) Chapter 20)

He has some interesting renderings which has caused me to revise my translation once again:

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 30-107-110 C.E.): [3rd REVISION] "...Take a stand, Brothers, firmly based in the faith of Jesus Christ, and his love, in his sufferings and resurrection. May you all gather together out of that name you share, in undeserved kindness, in the (one) faith of God [the] Father, and of Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, (πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως) "THE FIRST (ONE) TO BE BORN OF ALL CREATION", from the family of David according to the flesh, and be under the guidance of the comforter. In obedience to the overseer and the older (men), with an undistracted mind, breaking the one common loaf, which is the medicine of immortality, an antidote that we may not die, but to live to God through Jesus Christ, purged of all evil..." (Chapter 20 Ignatius of Antioch; Ephesians Long Version MATT13T Revised 1/11/10 Re-Revised 1/11/10)

One of my future goals is to translate all of Ignatius Long Recension into modern English.

Although I personally don't think it is free of interpolations, I think it deserves a better translation than Roberts & Donaldson's version.

JUSTIN MARTYRS INTERESTING VARIANT ON COLOSSIANS 1:15 & AND SOME TRANSLATION BIAS

I was reading Justin Martyrs "Dialouge with Trypho a Jew" the other day and noticed this passage:

GREEK TEXT: "...καὶ τὸ οὖν Ἰσραὴλ ὄνομα τοῦτο σημαίνει· ἄνθρωπος νικῶν δύναμιν· τὸ γὰρ ἴσρα ἄνθρωπος νικῶν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἢλ δύναμις. ὅπερ καὶ διὰ τοῦ μυστηρίου τῆς πάλης, ἣν ἐπάλαισεν Ἰακὼβ μετὰ τοῦ φαινομένου μὲν ἐκ τοῦ τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς βουλῇ ὑπηρετεῖν, θεοῦ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων, ἐπεπροφήτευτο οὕτως καὶ ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος ὁ Χριστὸς ποιήσειν..." - (Dial. Chap 125:3 - Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαῖον Διάλογος (ed. E. J. Goodspeed) Die ältesten Apologeten, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915)

Chapter 125:[3] "...That Christ ... in that Christ ministered to the will of God, yet He is God, because He is the First-begotten of all creatures..." (Kevin Edgecomes Translation)

CHAPTER CXXV:[III]: "...And that Christ ... in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten of all creatures..." - (ANF Roberts & Donaldson Translation)

I have a problem with the rendering in red. It is simply does not correspond to the Greek text.

Lets take a closer look. It is this passage in particular:

"...θεοῦ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων..."

Chapter 125:[3] "...yet He is God..." (KET)

CHAPTER CXXV:[III]: "...yet nevertheless is God..." (R&DT)

The two translators, in my opinion are doing one of two things here:

1.) Bias Translation towards the Trinity
2.) Translating according to a textual variant

If there is a textual variant here (that I am not aware of) I don't have a problem with it, but only if it is legitimate variant.

But, if this is one of dozens and dozens of biased renderings to support the Post-Chanceldon Trinity doctrine, then I do have a serious issues with it.

[ISSUE 1]: They drop the word (ἐκ) out of the text. (ἐκ) literally means: "out-of", as out of a source. In this case the context being "out of (θεοῦ) God" as a source. Which brings me to my second ISSUE with the way they rendered this passage.

[ISSUE 2]: They have translated the genitive case theos (θεοῦ) "(of) God" as simply "God". Which would be (θεός) or (θεόν) or even (ὁ θεός) or (τόν θεόν) rather than (θεοῦ) in the text.

[ISSUE 3]: They have also dropped (τέκνον) "child" from the text also.

So if we follow their rendering the Greek text would be one of the following possibilities:

"...θεός δὲ εἶναι πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων..."

"...θεόν δὲ εἶναι πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων..."

"...ὁ θεός δὲ εἶναι πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων..."

"...τόν θεόν δὲ εἶναι πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων..."

Instead of the actual text:

"...θεοῦ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων..."

They have obviously not rendered the Greek literally. That's there choice.

The (δὲ) is functioning adversatively here and it can be rendered "but," "however," or "yet" in this context.

[ISSUE 4]: Theres a sort of parallel construction going on in this verse.

    - ἐκ τοῦ τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς

    - "out-of (of)-the (to)-the (of)-the Father..."

    - ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι τέκνον

    - "out-of (of) the is a child..."

Very literal translation underneath.

One of our learned brothers who is a university lecturer and more knowledgeable in Greek than myself suggested the following rendering:

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 160 C.E.): "...he ministered to the will of the Father, yet (on the other hand) is from (out of) God in that he is the firstborn (first-begotten) child of the whole creation (of all creatures)..." - (Dial. 125)

Bear in mind this is just a literal translation and only a suggestion.  He would certainly render it differently in a final translation if he chose to do one.

He agrees that the text has not been translated properly in this instance. (Thank you very much for your contribution).

Here is my own translation and alternate renderings along with some footnotes which verify some of my renderings:

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 160 C.E.): "...on the one hand he was a subservient minister to the Fathers purposes, yet nevertheless he is from out of God, the first child to be born of all the things created..." - (Dial. 125 MATT13)

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 160 C.E.): "...on the one hand he was ministering to the Fathers deliberative counsel, yet nevertheless he is from out of God, the first child to be born of all the things created..." - (Dial. 125 ALTERNATE RENDERING MATT13)

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 160 C.E.): "...on the one hand he was ministering as a subordinate to the Fathers purposes, yet nevertheless he is a child from out of God, the first of the creatures to be born of the entire universe..." - (Dial. 125 ALTERNATE RENDERING MATT13)

STRONGS DEFINITION (1012): [βουλή boulē] Advise, counsel. From boulomai; volition, i.e. (objectively) advice, or (by implication) purpose -- + advise, counsel, will.

(ὑπηρετεῖν) Verb: Present Active Infinitive

GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON By Lindell & Scott Page 839, 840: "...(ὑπηρετοῦντα) I. properly an under-rower, under-seaman, II. generally an UNDER-LING, SERVANT...[Same word] SUB-ORDINATE..."

STRONGS DEFINITION (5256): [ὑπηρετέω] From huperetes; to be a subordinate, i.e. (by implication) subserve -- minister (unto), serve.

Occurs once in the NT in the same tense:

Acts 24:23 διαταξάμενος τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἔχειν τε ἄνεσιν καὶ μηδένα κωλύειν τῶν ἰδίων αὐτοῦ (ὑπηρετεῖν) αὐτῷ.
"He ordered the centurion that Paul should be kept in custody, and should have some privileges, and not to forbid any of his friends (to-serve-him) or to visit him."

Getting past the miss-translation and trinitarian bias issue. There is still one point remaining on this text that I would like to bring forward.

GREEK TEXT: "...πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων..." - (Dial. Chap 125:3 - Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαῖον Διάλογος (ed. E. J. Goodspeed) Die ältesten Apologeten, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915)

Chapter 125:[3] "...the First-begotten of all creatures..." (KET)

CHAPTER CXXV:[III]: "...the first-begotten of all creatures..." (R&DT)

Jesus here is not just:

"...First (one) to be born OF ALL CREATION..." Colossians 1:15 (MATT13)

Compare:

JUSTINS DAILOUGE LXXXV(85):2 "...πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως..."

Or

JUSTINS DAILOUGE LXXXIV(84):2 "...τὸν πρωτότοκον τῶν πάντων ποιημάτων..."

"...the First (one) to be born OF ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE..."

But he is in this verse:

GREEK TEXT: "...πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων..." - (Dial. Chap 125:3)

"...First (one) to be born OF ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED..."

Or

"...the First of all CREATURES to be born of the (ὅλων) entire universe..."

Jesus is one of the:

(κτισμάτων) "CREATURE(S)" or "CREATED (THINGS)"

Or

(κτίσμα) "A CREATION" or "A (THING) CREATED"

COMPARE:

κτίσμα 1 κτίζω
anything created, a creature, NTest.
Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

2938. ktisma
a creature
Original Word: κτίσμα
Transliteration: ktisma
Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-mah)
Short Definition: creature
Word Origin
from ktizó
Definition
a creature
NASB Word Usage
created (1), created thing (1), creatures (2).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries Copyright © 1981, 1998 by The Lockman Foundation All rights reserved Lockman.org

Revelation 8:9 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
καὶ ἀπέθανεν τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχὰς καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν πλοίων διεφθάρησαν.

Greek    Transliteration    Strong's    Morphology    English
καὶ    kai    2532    CONJ    and
ἀπέθανεν    apethanen    599    V-2AAI-3S    died
τὸ    to    3588    T-NSN    which
τρίτον    triton    5154    A-NSN    third
τῶν    tōn    3588    T-GPN    of the
κτισμάτων   
ktismatōn    2938    N-GPN    creatures
τῶν    tōn    3588    T-GPN    which
ἐν    en    1722    PREP    in
τῇ    tē    3588    T-DSF    which
θαλάσσῃ    thalassē    2281    N-DSF    sea
τὰ    ta    3588    T-NPN    which
ἔχοντα    echonta    2192    V-PAP-NPN    had
ψυχὰς    psuchas    5590    N-APF    life
καὶ    kai    2532    CONJ    and
τὸ    to    3588    T-NSN    of the
τρίτον    triton    5154    A-NSN    third
τῶν    tōn    3588    T-GPN    which
πλοίων    ploiōn    4143    N-GPN    ships
διεφθάρησαν    diephtharēsan    1311    V-2API-3P    was destroyed

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 8:9 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
καὶ ἀπέθανεν τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχὰς καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν πλοίων διεφθάρησαν.

Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
et mortua est tertia pars (creaturae) quae habent animas et tertia pars navium interiit
   
New International Version (©1984)
a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

English Standard Version (©2001)
A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed.

International Standard Version (©2008)
one-third of the creatures that were living in the sea died, and one-third of the ships was destroyed.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
one-third of the creatures that were living in the sea died, and one-third of the ships were destroyed.

King James Bible
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

American King James Version
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

American Standard Version
and there died the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, even they that had life; and the third part of the ships was destroyed.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the third part of those creatures died, which had life in the sea, and the third part of the ships was destroyed.

Darby Bible Translation
and the third part of the creatures which were in the sea which had life died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

English Revised Version
and there died the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, even they that had life; and the third part of the ships was destroyed.

Webster's Bible Translation
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Weymouth New Testament
And a third part of the creatures that were in the sea--those that had life--died; and a third part of the ships were destroyed.

World English Bible
and one third of the living creatures which were in the sea died. One third of the ships were destroyed.

Young's Literal Translation

and die did the third of the creatures that are in the sea, those having life, and the third of the ships were destroyed.

James 1:18 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων.

Greek    Transliteration    Strong's    Morphology    English

βουληθεὶς    boulētheis    1014    V-APP-NSM    having deliberated
ἀπεκύησεν    apekuēsen    616    V-AAI-3S    he begot
ἡμᾶς    ēmas    2248    P-1AP    us
λόγῳ    logō    3056    N-DSM    by word
ἀληθείας    alētheias    225    N-GSF    of truth
εἰς    eis    1519    PREP    so
τὸ    to    3588    T-ASN    the
εἶναι    einai    1511    V-PAN    to be
ἡμᾶς    ēmas    2248    P-1AP    us
ἀπαρχήν    aparchēn    536    N-ASF    firstfruits
τινα    tina    5100    X-ASF    kind
τῶν    tōn    3588    T-GPN    of the
αὐτοῦ    autou    846    P-GSM    of him
κτισμάτων    ktismatōn    2938    N-GPN    creatures

ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ 1:18 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics

βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων.

Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
voluntarie genuit nos verbo veritatis ut simus initium aliquod (creaturae) eius

New International Version (©1984)
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of all he created.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.

King James Bible
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

American King James Version

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

American Standard Version
Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

Darby Bible Translation
According to his own will begat he us by the word of truth, that we should be a certain first-fruits of his creatures.

English Revised Version
Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

Webster's Bible Translation
Of his own will he hath begotten us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.

Weymouth New Testament
In accordance with His will He made us His children through the Message of the truth, so that we might, in a sense, be the First fruits of the things which He has created.

World English Bible
Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

Young's Literal Translation
having counselled, He did beget us with a word of truth, for our being a certain first-fruit of His creatures.

The word κτίσμα is not a verb with the meaning of “to create”; it is a noun indicating ‘something that has been created’ or ‘creature’. (See BDAG, p. 573.)

Compare also the LXX Apocryphal Book of "Wisdom": 9:2; 13:5; 14:11; Sir. 38:34; 3 Macc. 5:11.

Wisdom 9:2    καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ σου κατασκευάσας ἄνθρωπον ἵνα δεσπόζῃ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ γενομένων κτισμάτων

Wisdom 13:5 ἐκ γὰρ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς κτισμάτων ἀναλόγως ὁ γενεσιουργὸς αὐτῶν θεωρεῖται