Coptic translation of Revelation 3:14

slimboyfat

In an earlier thread I mentioned how Witnesses are using the Sahidic Coptic translation to support their view on John 1:1. Now Witness apologists are pointing out that Revelation 3:14 supports their view that this verse teaches that Jesus is God's first creation. Whereas the Greek uses a word that might be construed to mean "origin" or "ruler" rather than "beginning", the Coptic word used is said to mean purely "beginning."

I wonder why the Society have not made use of this before. Guess they just did not know about it, much like how Penton commented in Apocalypse Delayed on the fact that Watchtower writers seem unaware that Origen supports their view of Jesus as a "second god."

Narkissos

Any link for that one sbf?

At first sight it seems to be a poor argument, because the best "high" interpretations for this use of arkhè don't rely as much on the possible lexical polysemy of the term (i.e. the term itself meaning something else than "beginning," e.g. "ruler" or "principle") than on philosophical-theological speculations on the very sense of "beginning," especially the hypostatisation of the "Beginning" as a divine emanation/being, which is reflected in the early Gnostic commentaries of the Gospel of John.

hallelujah

The WTBTS can't get past the fact that in the elohist tradition (Genesis 1) it was elohim (the gods? a god? god?) which created creation and in the Yahwist tradition (Genesis ii.4) it was Yahweh (Jehovah) that created creation.

So the idea that Jesus created creation can't sit squarely with Genesis ii.4, and it can only sit squarely with Genesis i.1 if Jesus IS elohim -THE elohim, or at least an elohim.

Sorry I'm too new to all of this to get past the first two chapters of the bible.

Forscher

I am not suprised at all that the WTBTS seems unaware of that kind of iunformation. The folks who write for them are scholars of Watchtower literature and nothing else. that is why we probably will not see any meaningful innovation out of them.

Forscher

Death to the Pixies

I wonder why the Society have not made use of this before. Guess they just did not know about it, much like how Penton commented in Apocalypse Delayed on the fact that Watchtower writers seem unaware that Origen supports their view of Jesus as a "second god."

I am not suprised at all that the WTBTS seems unaware of that kind of iunformation. The folks who write for them are scholars of Watchtower literature and nothing else. that is why we probably will not see any meaningful innovation out of them.

Reply: Penton usually assumes a lot for the Society. Penton should probably be aware that Origen's "second God" in toto, is not what the WT means when they call Jesus "a god", Penton is arguing for translation though, so some good use of Origen could be made, but that does not eman they are unaware. Same with Justin Martyr as he was also pointed out in Pentons Apocalypse Delayed (pg. 174, 2nd edition '97) and he also feels the Society is apparently too ignorant of Justin to use. The Society has indeed recognized that Justin teaches that Jesus "is other than the God that created all things" (SYBTB) and also that Justin acknlowedges Jesus as "God":

"Since the Son was born from God, Justin does use the expression "God" in connection with the Son. He states in his First Apology: "The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God" (WT 4/1 92)

. So the fact he classifies the Society as "unaware" is most puzzling and probably little more than the typical jab that people like to make against the WT. As far as the Coptic translations used by some WT aplogists (John 1:1, Rev 3:14), they are not the most convincing arguements to the average Joe, the Wt will do better exegeting the NT which is going to be more convincing anyhow to the average bible study JWs come in contact with.