From: Peter Phillips (p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 14 1997 - 11:31:36 EDT
Yes, but that way you just end up in a circular argument.  If 'beginning' 
is simply a reference to a time before physical matter was created then it 
is not the beginning - John would not use ARCHE.  You seem to be suggesting 
two phases of creation - a phase of creating spiritual and angelic beings 
and then a stage of creating physical beings.  I don't see how you can 
cover the first stage with the word "ARCHE" it just doesn't seem right.
Moreover what's all this about angels anyway?  John 1 says that the Logos 
created all things - in fact nothing was made that has been made without 
him.  Therefore angelic beings must come in at John 1:3 where the verb 
changes to GINESQAI.  The Job reading is irrelevant.
There is no need to give a temporal distinction to EIMI in John 1:1-2. 
 John is referring to a pre-creation, pre-BRSHT period (time-speak again!) 
and therefore uses a-temporal EIMI and then when he turns to look at Gen 
1.1 and the creation of all things he turns to GINESQAI for the temporal 
connection.  John 1:1-2 provide details about states of being (EINAI), John 
1:3ff provides the dynamic of things coming-to-be (GINESQAI).
Pete Phillips,
Cliff College, Sheffield, England
p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk
http://champness.shef.ac.uk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:22 EDT