An Alexandrian Rereading of Prov 8:22 and Its Christological Implications

Abstract

In the early years of the Christian Church, it was difficult to reach a consensus on the relationship between God, the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ. One focus of the discussions was the pre-established relationship between God and his wisdom, as described in Prov 8:22–25 and Sir 24. An original contribution was the Council of Nicaea’s approach to the terms ‘creator’ and ‘creature’, both of which were related to the understanding of the Hebrew verb קנה and the Greek verb κτίζω in those passages. This study employs novel linguistic methods to elucidate the meaning of both verbs, providing fresh insights into how the Alexandrian Jewish and Christian communities interpreted the relationship between God and his wisdom, and how this influenced the terminology of the Nicene Creed.

1. Introduction

During the Christological controversies, it was difficult to reach a consensus on the relationship between God, the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ. One focus of the discussions was the pre-established relationship between God and his wisdom, as described in the Books of Proverbs and Sirach (Prov 8:22–25; Sir 24). An original contribution to theology was the Council of Nicaea’s approach to the terms ‘creator’ and ‘creature’, both of which were related to the understanding of the Hebrew verb קנה and the Greek verb κτίζω in those passages. The understanding of both verbs oscillated between two extremes ‘to create’ or ‘to generate’, each with its own ontological implications when applied to the figure of the Son of God, the notion of generation being the one introduced in the Nicene Creed.

Unfortunately, after 17 centuries, modern translations of the Bible seem to diminish the achievements of the Nicene Fathers, as they usually translate קנה and κτίζω as ‘to create’, particularly in Prov 8:22 and Sir 24:8–9. Does this translation truly reflect the meaning of קנה and κτίζω in both passages? Although the era of controversy has passed, there is still no consensus on the exact meaning of these two verbs, how they should be translated, and how they should be interpreted. Despite turning over every stone in the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible, endless linguistic analysis has failed to solve the problem.

One reason for this vicious circle lies in the nature of the Book of Proverbs, which is a complex work with divergent Hebrew and Greek versions that may offer two distinct theological perspectives on modeling divine wisdom imagery. Nowadays the analysis continues to oscillate between the Hebrew and Greek realms, paying little attention to the influence of Egyptian literature on biblical wisdom books, particularly in the Book of Proverbs, as demonstrated by many scholars (Bryce 1979; Dell 2006; McKane 1970; Lichtheim 1983; Gemser 1986; Schipper 2021; Shupak 1993, 2015). (This passage was added)

Another aspect that is still absent from biblical commentaries is recent achievements in linguistic research. Over the last few decades, the close relationship between the Hebrew and Egyptian languages has been demonstrated through their shared ancestry, known as the Proto-Hamito-Semitic family. Within the Egyptian branch of this family, the form qn/qny is attested in Demotic, and cwnt in Coptic. Both forms are related to the Semitic branch through the Hebrew form קנה, the Ugaritic form, and the Aramean form קנה, among others. These forms all share a common semantic field and other linguistic patterns so they can be considered cognate. This phenomenon is characteristic of the Hamito-Semitic phylum and it is also present in other Egyptian loanwords used in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles so it is not unique to the form qny.1

Following this introduction, this study will highlight inconsistencies in the traditional linguistic approach to elucidating the meanings of the verbs קנה and κτίζω. Secondly, it will utilize advances in Proto-Hamito-Semitic linguistic research to clarify the meaning of קנה in Prov 8:22. Thirdly, it will evaluate the similarities between Egyptian and biblical notions of wisdom, considering how these were received in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, and examining their cosmological and theological implications. Fourthly, the analysis will shed new light on how the Jewish and Christian communities of Alexandria understood the concept of creation and the connection between God and his wisdom in Prov 8:22, as well as how this impacted the development of the Nicene Creed’s definition of the relationship between God and his Logos and Son. Finally, the results will be compiled and evaluated.

2. The Linguistic Feature

When attempting to determine the meaning of the Hebrew קנני in Prov 8:22 and its Greek translation, ἔκτισέν, in the Septuagint, the traditional linguistic approach reveals its limitations. This is due to the multifaceted nature of the problem related to the semantic fields of the verbs קנה and κτίζω, their theological interpretation when applied to the divine realm, and the different cosmogonies at stake.

2.1. The Hebrew Verb קנה in Prov 8:22

The verb קנה is used 14 times in the Hebrew version of Proverbs (1:5; 4:5²; 4:7²; 8:22; 15:32; 16:16²; 17:16; 18:15; 18:8; 20:14; 23:23). Some of these passages are modified or absent in the Septuagint. The term קנני is used in Prov 8:22 and translated as ‘created me’ (NET; NIRV; RSV; TNK) or ‘possessed me’ (ASV; DBY; DRA; ERV; ESV; GNV; KJG; KJG; and others), or even ‘made me’ (CJV; JPS; LXA). On only a few occasions is it translated as ‘begot me’ (NAB) or ‘brought me forth’ (NIV; TNIV).

‘The Lord created me (קנני) at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old’.

(Prov 8:22 NET)

As we can see, the proposed semantic field of קנה seems to be broad and dispersed, raising some questions. If the authors of Prov 8:22 intended to convey that God’s wisdom was created in the divine realm, prior to the creation of the world, why did they not employ the verbs ברא or עשׂה as in Gen 1–2, rather than קנה? On the other hand, if the translations ‘created me’ or ‘possessed me’ have some undesirable chronological and ontological implications when describing the relationship between God and his wisdom, why are they still used in the current translation of Prov 8:22? How can the ontological distance between God and his wisdom be avoided? Are we not reliving ancient controversies?

Another translation issue relates to the term קנני in Prov 8:22 and its discrepancy with the traditional linguistic perspective. Let us take as a reference point the analysis of the verb קנה made by Lipinski in his Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT). There he rejects the general meaning ‘to create’, suggesting instead ‘to possess’ or ‘to acquire’. However, he only accepts its metaphorical application to wisdom, i.e., ‘acquiring wisdom’ = ‘being wise’ (Lipinski 1990–1992, p. 59). He offers a second option, ‘to beget’ or ‘to bear’ which he considers to be the better option for Prov 8:22, as it follows the Ugaritic use of this root when used with a female subject (Lipinski 1990–1992, p. 61).

Taking into account the context in which קנני is used, and its relationship with the Hebrew verbחוֹללתי meaning ‘to give birth’ (Prov 8:25) and with the Ugaritic verb קני meaning ‘to procreate’, some authors propose for the term קנני the translations ‘procreated me’, ‘gave birth to me’ or ‘begot me’ (McKane 1970; Wiebe 1992, p. 115; Murphy 1998, p. 47). While these translations best explain the relationship between God and his wisdom, it is important to clarify the notion of ‘beget’, ‘procreation’ or ‘giving birth’, as these terms do not have human connotations in this passage.

Within the broader context of the history of religions, Leo Perdue suggests the meaning ‘to create’ for the verb קנה, as seen in Deut 32:6 and in some Phoenician inscriptions from Karatepe, where the god El is referred to as the creator of the earth, El qoneh aretz (Perdue 1994, p. 355). However, he favors the translation of קנני as ‘fathered me’ in Prov 8:22 (Perdue 1994, p. 89).

In the second half of Prov 8:22, a reference is made to the origin of God’s wisdom by using the Hebrew term ראשׁית, which is usually translated as ‘the beginning’ of his work. Some authors reject the chronological flavor of this option, instead offering the translation ‘the model of YHWH’s ways of work’ (Vawter 1980, p. 214), while Jean de Savignac adds that translating קדם as ‘since always’ suggests a notion of ‘production’ that is different from that of the world (de Savignac 1954, p. 431), so he renders the whole verse as follows: ‘YHWH has produced me as his first manifestation; the first fruits of his acts since always’. He argues that a similar interpretation can be found in Philo’s works (De confesione linguarum 63).

2.2. The Greek Verb κτίζω in Prov 8:22

The Greek Lexicon of the Septuagint (LEH) translates κτίζω as ‘to create’, as do Friberg’s Analytical Greek Lexicon, Barclay Newman’s Greek-English Dictionary, and Low and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. The LEH also adds the meanings ‘to found’ and ‘to build (a city)’. Bauer and Danker’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament explains that κτίζω translates to ‘to bring something to existence’, referring to the commencement of an action, process, or state of being.

The verb appears 74 times in the Septuagint and only 9 times in the New Testament. It is primarily found in the wisdom books of the Bible, particularly in the Book of Sirach (23 times, some of which refer to creation (Sir 1:4, 9; 24:8, 9)) and 5 times in the Book of Wisdom. The verb is only used once in the Book of Proverbs, where it translates the Hebrew term קנני (Prov 8:22) as ἔκτισέν με.

Unfortunately, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged (Bromiley 1985), which provides a detailed analysis of the verb κτίζω in biblical, rabbinic, and classical literature, pays little attention to this passage. Instead, it offers only a vague commentary suggesting that the meanings ‘to establish’ or ‘to create’ are more appropriate, but they should be understood ‘poetically’ in the context of God’s relationship with Israel (e.g., Deut 32:6; Exo 15:16) (Foerster 1965, p. 1007).

In classical Greek literature, the verb κτίζω is used to denote the foundation or establishment of groves, temples, theatres, baths, cemeteries, and the institution of festivals or games. It does not denote the execution of the act itself, but rather the basic and decisive intention to establish, found, or institute. Therefore, it is related to creation through ‘invention’, referring to the fundamental intellectual process of conceiving something new. It is also used to describe the establishment of philosophical schools (Foerster 1965, p. 1025).

The related word, κτίσμα ‘creature’, is used four times in the Bible. It is found in some Egyptian hymns dedicated to the goddess Isis and other deities who are depicted as the founders of culture (Foerster 1965, p. 1028). Evidence suggests that Hellenistic Judaism adopted the term, as it appears six times in the Greek Apocrypha (3 Mac 5:11; Wis 9:2; 13:5; 14:11; Sir 36:14; 38:34), where it is used to mean ‘creature’.

When used alongside the Greek verb γεννάω in Prov 8, the verb κτίζω reinforces the idea that wisdom is ‘begotten’ from the beginning, before creation was made. Conversely, the verb ποιέω is used five times in the same context (Prov 8:23.26.28.29 LXX), always in relation to the creation of the material world:

‘Before time, He established me from the beginning (ἐθεμελίωσέν με ἐν ἀρχῇ); before he made (ποιῆσαι) the earth: even before he made (ποιῆσαι) the depths; when there were no springs abounding with water, before the mountains were settled, before the hills he begets me (γεννᾷ με)’.

(Prov 8:23–25 LXX)

The use of ποιέω in this context follows its use in Gen 1, suggesting that the Greek translators reserved it for those actions involving material creation. This is consistent with its primary meanings of ‘to do’, ‘to make’, ‘to cause’, ‘to perform’, ‘to manufacture’, and ‘to produce’ (as defined in the Gingrich New Testament Lexicon).

Further, in Foerster’s analysis in the TDNT, he compares the use of the verb κτίζω in the Septuagint with the language of the demiurge in classical literature. After exhaustive research, he concludes that there is no ‘emanatic element’ in biblical theology of creation:

‘It is clear why the LXX preferred the word group κτίζω to the more obvious δημιουργϵιν. Δημιουργὸς suggests the craftsman and his work in the strict sense, whereas κτίζω reminds us of the ruler at whose command a city arises out of nothing because the power of the ruler stands behind his word. Δημιουργϵιν is a technical manual process, κτίζω an intellectual and volitional. Avoidance of δημιουργϵιν also averts a second misunderstanding. Apart from the general estimation of the craftsman in antiquity, one might have thought that δημιουργὸς as artist would be quite an apt term for the Creator. But artistic work has in it a strong ‘emanatic’ element which is not present in the biblical belief in creation’.

(Foerster 1965, p. 1026) (the italic is mine)

What is striking is his rejection of the ‘emanating element’ in God’s wisdom without providing any further explanation. Nevertheless, this concept is clearly present in the Book of Wisdom.

2.3. The Verb κτίζω in the Book of Wisdom

The Book of Wisdom was probably written in Alexandria in the 1st century BC (Larcher 1984, p. 148). There, the verb ‘κτίζω’ is always used in relation to cosmic and human generation (Wis 1:14; 2:23; 10:1; 11:17; 13:3) but never to describe the relationship between God and his wisdom:

‘For he conceived ἔκτισεν all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world γενέσεις τοῦ κόσμου were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth’.

(Wis 1:14)

In this passage, we observe that the verb κτίζω and the term γενέσεις are reserved for the ontological level of creation, enabling creatures to ‘have their being’, and ensuring that creation is healthy.

Nevertheless, the emanatic element is clearly applied to wisdom in Chapter 7, and expressed through the term ‘ἀπόρροια’ and related concepts such as exhalation (ἀτμὶς) and glory (δόξης). There we find an extensive description of these attributes and the relationship between God and his wisdom, including her cosmic and ethical dimensions:

‘I learned, for she that is the fashioner of all things taught me, namely wisdom. For she is a breath (ἀτμὶς) of the power of God and an emanation (ἀπόρροια) of the pure glory (δόξης) of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For, she is a reflection of eternal light; and a spotless mirror of the activity of God and an image of his goodness. Although she is one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things’.

(Wis 7: 21.25–27)

The Greek term ‘ἀπόρροια’, here translated as ‘emanation’, is extensively used in Greco-Egyptian literature to express the origins of the gods and wisdom (Larcher 1984, p. 498). But it is especially in Greco-Egyptian literature (under the influence of Ancient Egyptian doctrines) that the term is used for every purpose, e.g., to explain the origin of a given deity (Hermes, the Isis-Osiris couple, the divinities of Destiny, the beneficent influence of the gods, the divine origin of kings and of true wisdom, etc.).

According to Larcher, the term ‘ἀπόρροια’ in Wis 7:25 refers to a reality that is separate from the substance from which it originates, leading a distinct existence or exercising its own activity (Larcher 1984, p. 498). It seems that for him the notion of wisdom as a creature is present.

At this point, it is important to distinguish between two different concepts, that of emanation, and that of creation. Both concepts are related to cosmogony. Emanation suggests that the universe and all its contents naturally flow from a higher, transcendent source—such as the light of the sun. In contrast, creation implies a deliberate act of will by a personal, transcendent Creator who brings beings into existence from nothingness. Emanation implies an intimate ontological relationship between parts, whereas creation implies an ontological distance between the Creator and their creations. The former may have pantheistic connotations, whereas the latter does not. This distinction lies at the very heart of the subsequent Christological debates concerning the divine and human nature of the Son of God (Fernández 2021). The tension between these two concepts is evident in all Bible translations, as can be seen in the Septuagint’s option to name the first book as ‘Genesis’ instead of ‘Creation’, in honor of the content of the first two chapters.

The Book of Wisdom does not contain the speeches found in Prov 8 and Sir 24, in which wisdom explains how she was conceived by God. Nevertheless, it contains a particular development in Wis 7, which aligns with the emanatic idea of conceiving wisdom as light and spirit. However, the verb κτίζω is used in the Book of Wisdom similarly to how it is used in Proverbs and Sirach, to explain how wisdom acts creatively at an ontological level, enabling things to exist.

2.4. The Verb κτίζω in the Works of Philo

The verb κτίζω is used fourteen times in Philo’s works, four of which are directly related to the creation account (De opificio mundi 17. 19. 24 and in De decalogo 1: 97). In his writings, Philo portrays the Logos as the intermediary in the creation of the world, akin to wisdom in the Bible (Williamson 1989, p. 120).

The translations of Philo’s works often obscure the meaning of the verb κτίζω, rendering it as ‘to build’ when describing the establishment of a city (Yonge 1854–1955; Runia 2001, pp. 50–51), in line with its usage in classical Greek literature (Foerster 1965, p. 1025). But a careful examination of the passages reveals that κτίζω is used metaphorically to explain the intimate details of the creation process, in which the Logos acts ad intra of God at an ontological level. Here I quote a passage of De opificio mundi:

‘And if any one were to desire to use more undisguised terms, he would not call the world, which is perceptible only to the intellect, anything else but the logos of God (ἢ θεοῦ λόγον), already occupied in the doing of the world (κοσμοποιοῦντος); for neither is a city, while only perceptible to the intellect, anything else but the logos (λογισμὸς) of the architect, who is already considering to build one perceptible to the external senses, on the model of that which is only generated (κτίζειν) to the intellect’.

(De opificio mundi 1:24)

In this context, the participle κοσμοποιοῦντος, related to ποιέω, is used as it typically is in Gen 1, meaning ‘to do’ the world. However, it does not refer to the idea of creation ex nihilo, which emerged later in philosophical developments, rather than being present in the Book of Genesis.

Philo follows the use of ποιέω and κτίζω in the Septuagint, particularly in his developments about the genesis of creation, which he describes as a two-stage process linked by order, but not by time (Legum allegoriarum 1.2) and mediated through the Logos. The first stage is linked to the genesis of the immaterial model, which is imprinted on the Logos like a seal. This first stage develops ad intra of God. The second stage involves modeling the sensible world through the activity of the Logos, which develops ad extra of God. Philo only links the verb κτίζω to the internal process by which God imagines the creation of the world, similarly to conceiving a city. This ad intra movement conveys the idea of ‘inventing’. Only then is the world modeled through the Logos, which, in Philo’s works, is associated with the creation account in Gen 2 (Gienini 2025).

The participle κοσμοποιοῦντος refers to the complete action of making the world, as in other passages (Leg. 3:96; Dec. 1:105; Aet. 1:39.40): ‘But the shadow of God is his word, which he used like an instrument when he was making the world ‘ἐκοσμοποίει’ (Legum allegoriarum 3:96).

2.5. The Theology and Cosmogony of Prov 8:22

In the creation accounts of the Book of Genesis, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew verbsברא and עשׂה (respectively meaning ‘to create’, and ‘to do’ or ‘to make’), by the Greek verb ποιέω rather than using κτίζω. This is confirmed 14 times in the Greek version of Gen 1–2, indicating a consistent translation and interpretation of those Hebrew verbs used in relation to God’s powerful act of creation of the world. The verb ποιέω is expressly repeated three times in Gen 1:27 as a literary device to emphasize the significance of human beings, each instance corresponding precisely with the Hebrew ברא. However, in other passages, κτίζω corresponds to קנה in reference to God as creator, as in Gen 14: 19. 22. This raises a new question: If ποιέω is the primary option for expressing creation in the Septuagint translation of Gen 1, why did the translators of the Book of Proverbs reject it, choosing κτίζω instead? Whatever the answer, it is clear that the notion of creation in Prov 8 differs from that in Gen 1 and that it contains nuances requiring clarification.

In his extensive study The Septuagint of Proverbs, Johann Cook translates Prov 8:22 as follows: ‘The Lord created me (ἔκτισέν) as the beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works’ (Cook 1997, p. 212). This translation implies a metaphysical distance between God and his wisdom, and supposes a theology of creation that almost subjugates the existence of wisdom to that of a creature. When Cook analyzes the theology of the Greek version of Proverbs, he concludes that the purpose of the translator is ‘a deliberate endeavor… to play down the ‘independent’ role of wisdom; therefore, ‘wisdom was created for the sake of God’s works’ (Cook 2015, p. 7).

Cook’s assertion is consistent with his belief that the Greek translation of Proverbs was produced in Palestine, rather than in the Jewish circles of Alexandria. More precisely, he claims that it was translated in Jerusalem by ‘a conservative Jew who went to great lengths to avoid any possible misunderstanding of the original text’s intention’ (Cook 1997, p. 327). He supposes that the author of the Hebrew version of Prov 8:22 interpreted the whole verse as a chronological sequence of Wisdom’s origin: ‘What is clear, however, is that wisdom was created or conceived at the beginning. The noun ראשׁית is used in the meaning of “beginning” in a temporal sense in this verse’ (Cook 1997, p. 213). Then, he concludes his analysis casting a shadow of doubt over the expertise of the Greek translators:

‘The author(s) of these verses made use of a number of ambiguous lexemes. Consequently, the nuance to be attributed to the verb קנה is not at an evident. The rest of the passage even leaves the suggestion that wisdom could have been conceived and not created. It is nevertheless clear that the intention of the author(s) was to underline the preexistence of wisdom in comparison to the creation. Therefore it is not the fact of how she came about that is important for the author(s), but that she is the first of all of creation’.

(Cook 1997, p. 215)

It seems that Cook is simply not interested in distinguishing between ‘conception’ and ‘creation’.

The alleged independence of wisdom from God may be suggested in the later Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, probably made in the 2nd century C.E. In all three versions, the active form ‘ἔκτισέν’ is replaced with the middle passive form ‘ἐκτήσατο’, which can be translated as ‘He has conceived for (by?) himself’. This change in terminology intends to reinforce God’s supremacy over his wisdom, but it does not conclude that she is a creature. Interestingly, the Greek version of Deuteronomy uses similar language in reference to God’s people. The New Jerusalem Bible (1985) seems to understand the nuances of the Greek and Hebrew versions as it translates as follows: ‘Is this not your father, who gave you being (ἐκτήσατό σε/קנך), who made you (ἐποίησέν/עשׂך), by whom you subsist (ἔκτισέν σε)?’ (Deu 32:6).

In my view, the uncertain translations of Prov 8:22 stem from two problems that are often overlooked when analyzing the theology of biblical wisdom literature, particularly with regard to the concept of creation. The first problem arises from the presupposition that the theology of the Septuagint is similar to that of the Hebrew text. The second problem, which I consider to be more significant, is accepting the hypothesis that the cosmogony in Gen 1–2 is similar to that of wisdom literature, especially the one developed in Prov 8 and Sir 24. Both hypotheses need to be reviewed. Firstly, the translation, hermeneutics, and theology of the Septuagint were influenced by their Alexandrian and Egyptian contexts, and tend to be more allegorical; they differ from the Palestinian approach, in which the accounts of Gen 1–2 are understood more chronologically and literally (Soulan and Soulan 2001, pp. 3–4; Stuhlmacher 1977, pp. 27–29). Secondly, the wisdom books depict creation as being mediated and subsistent by God’s wisdom, which in turn is conceived (קנה and κτίζω) by him; in contrast, in Gen 1, God creates (ברא) and makes (עשׂה and ποιέω) the creation directly by the power of his word. These issues are intertwined and need to be brought to light to be clarified.

It is important to realize that, in the passages where wisdom relates herself to creation, the genesis of the world is described as occurring in two stages. The first stage involves God begetting wisdom. The verb κτίζω is useful here as it defines the generation of wisdom from God. The second stage involves the creation of the world through wisdom; again, the verb κτίζω is used, bearing in mind that the world’s existence is also supported by wisdom. The first stage is present in Prov 8:22 (Murphy 1998, p. 75) and also developed in Sirach, where the verb κτίζω is used extensively. Although the creative action of wisdom may be implicit in Gen 1, it is only explicit in wisdom literature.

In the words of Leo Perdue:

‘Drawing on a rich variety of creation myths and their root metaphors, the sages depicted God as the creator of heaven and earth, who used wisdom to create and then to continue to sustain the world. Creation was not a once-for-all event locked in the primordial past, but rather a continuous action… For the sages, creation is a process of ordering by which pre-existent chaos is fashioned and contained by spoken word and skillful act. Creation is not ex nihilo, but is a continuous process by which God shapes chaos into an enduring cosmos and sustains a world that is intelligible, orderly, and good.’

(Perdue 1994, pp. 79–80)

Like other authors (e.g., Fernández Marcos et al. 2013, pp. 278–79; D’Hamonville 2000, pp. 23–24), I believe that the Septuagint (including the Greek version of Proverbs) was produced by the Jewish circles in Alexandria, probably at the end of the 3rd century BCE. As a translation, the Greek version of Proverbs reflects a Hellenistic context familiar with classical Greek literature and philosophical ideas, as well as Egyptian literature and religion (Sousa 2013; Joosten 2017). The Egyptian background has influenced its theology, cosmogony (Joosten 2000), and language (Fernández Marcos 2000, p. 29; D’Hamonville 2000, p. 24; Aitken 2016), as evidenced by the Egyptian loanwords retained in the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible (Yahuda 1947; Albright 1918a, 1918b; Koenig 1998; Torallas Tovar 2022).

3. The Egyptian Forms: qn/qny in Demotic and cwnt in Coptic

Now, let us travel to the realm of Ancient Egypt. As scholars have suggested since long before the linguistic advances of recent decades (Albright 1918a, 1918b, 1927; Yahuda 1947), the Hebrew Bible contains some Egyptian loanwords which are also reflected in the Septuagint (Koenig 1998; Torallas Tovar 2022).

This phenomenon occurred due to long-term cross-cultural migration between Egypt and the Levant over millennia, which resulted in creolization and the development of a common Proto-Hamito-Semitic language family, as well as similar iconographic, alphabetic, and literary motifs. Some authors even propose the existence of an Egyptian-Levantine koine—a term used to describe a group of shared features that emerged during the Middle Bronze Age (Staubli 2016; Kilani 2022).

Evidence of this process can be seen in the partially reconstructed Proto-Hamito-Semitic language family, a phylum that includes the Semitic, Cushitic, Ancient Egyptian, Coptic, Berber, and Chadic languages. This proto-language shares at least 2500 lexical items with similar conjugations, prefixes, suffixes, and plural and gender formations, among other features (Ehret 1995; Dolgopolsky 2008; Orel and Stolbova 1994). It probably arose no later than 10 or 9 millennia BCE in the Levant and North Africa, resulting from the mixing of migrants from the lower Nile valley with those from the Levant. This interaction left traces in each of the subsequent languages, which is why the Hamito-Semitic approach may inform the linguistic analysis of Hebrew texts.

A search in the Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary looking for similar Egyptian forms of qny/qn, reveals the root *kün (Identifer 1513), whose primary meanings are ‘woman’ and ‘co-wife’ (Orel and Stolbova 1994, pp. 329–30). A similar lexeme is also attested in the Semitic branch of the family as *kann-/*kinn- and possibly *kanna, with the same meaning. These forms are accepted ‘as part of a common Hamito-Semitic heritage’ (Orel and Stolbova 1994, p. XVI), suggesting that they are cognate, and share linguistic patrons and a common semantic field. These meanings point to a high degree of intimacy between the parties involved, which is evident in the Hebrew root קנה, particularly in passages where wisdom is personified as a woman standing in a close relationship with God. A similar relationship is described when wisdom interacts with human beings at an ethical level, as mother and wife, making them wise (Prov 31).

3.1. The Egyptian Root qny/qn

The Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae provides various alternatives for the Egyptian root qny/qn. When used as a verb, one of its meanings is ‘to embrace’. As a noun, it means ‘the bosom of a mother’, used as a metaphor for the act of giving birth. Allan Gardiner also proposes the meaning ‘to embrace’ for this root (Gardiner 1979).

An example of its use can be found in the Great Hymn of Aten from the Amarna period. There the root qny describes the intimacy between the supreme god Aten and the glorified pharaoh Akhenaten, who is ‘encircled/embraced’ by his god Aton:

‘Praise] to you, O living [Aton] … your rays (?), embracing (qny) your son, the son of Re, who lives on Ma’at, the lord of crowns, Akhenaten, who is great in his time, so that he may grant the reception of offerings in the temple of Aten’.

(Great Hymn of Aten 2)2

This metaphor of love between partners depicts the glorification of the pharaoh in the divine realm, with the goddess Ma’at playing her dual role as a mother and as the virtue of truth, as she embodies both concepts in Egyptian religion.

In a shorter version of the same hymn, the form ‘qny’ is replaced by ‘qmw’, meaning ‘create’ (Hoffmeier 2015, p. 217). A third version of the hymn, found in the tomb of Eye, explicitly links it to the Heb-Sed festival ceremonies of the enthronement of the pharaoh Akhenaten (Uphill 1965; Hornung 1995), during which he was venerated as the son of the god Aten. In this context, the metaphor of embracing can be understood as a re-enactment of the pharaoh’s glorification during his enthronement festival, when he was ‘begotten’ by the god Aten. This intimacy was said to extend to all creatures, as reflected in the art of the Amarna period and noted by Hornung:

‘…The obligatory kissing, embracing, and caressing among the royal family, the mourning of the royal couple at the bier of their daughter Meketaten, Nefertiti as a nursing mother, and all the scenes of intimacy that occur only in the art of Amarna. All these are intended to depict how the love that emanated from Aten determined the togetherness of his creatures, as exemplified in Pharaoh’s immediate surroundings… The rays depicted in the art are mentioned again and again in the hymns to the Aten as a token of the proximity of this ‘distant’ god.’

(Hornung 1995, pp. 39–42, 48)

The Egyptian qny/qn shows that the idea of creation is connected to the images of birth and the emergence of light. Depicted as rays of love and light emanating from the circle of the Aten, they are carved into the walls of Amarna temples, binding the god Aten to the pharaoh and recognizing him as a son. Rather than establishing a radical ontological distance, these images demonstrate the emanative nature of the Egyptian religion when describing the relationship between the god and the enthroned pharaoh. In this context, qny/qn is better understood as ‘to conceive’, referring to the immaterial generation of the glorified pharaoh (Hornung 1995, p. 91).

3.2. The Coptic Form cwnt

The Coptic language is related to the Egyptian branch of the Proto-Hamito-Semitic family of languages, representing the most recent development. A search in the Coptic Dictionary Online shows the root cwnt (lemma C3606) meaning ‘to create’ or ‘to be created’. For the sake of brevity, I will only quote one example that comes from the Sahidic version of Mar 13:19:

‘For in those days there will be oppression, such as there has not been the like from the beginning of the creation (mp cwnt) which God created (cwnty) until now, and never will be’.3

A similar translation is found in the Bohairic text, where that the root cwnt means ‘to create’. While the nature of the creation referred to in this passage is difficult to determine, we can observe that the root cwnt is associated with the creative works of God, reaffirming that it is a cognate form of the Egyptian form qny/qn, and the Semitic form קנה.

4. Egyptian Ma’at and Isis in Biblical Wisdom Literature

From the early stages of Egyptian religion, we find the goddess Ma’at, the goddess of wisdom, involved at the cosmic and the ethical levels. She was unique in her ability to interact at both levels. Here is a brief description of her skills offered by Cannuyer:

‘Hypostasis of the dynamic harmony that governs both, the universe and human society, mistress of the heavens, daughter and companion of the gods, especially the solar demiurge Re, Ma’at presided over the great order of natural cycles, the movement of the stars and cosmic revolutions. At the same time, she was none other than ‘truth-justice’, human solidarity and the social reciprocity that underpins ethics and the rule of law. In the eyes of the Egyptians, these two aspects were intertwined to guarantee man the possibility of access to eternity and divinization after death.’

(Cannuyer 2010, p. 12)

Similar developments can be seen in the depiction of Lady Wisdom as a woman in the books of Proverbs and Sirach, where she is demythologized and completely subordinated to YHWH. As a divine hypostasis and personification of God, she interacts with him during the creation of the world, and with human beings in the ethical realm.

While some 20th century authors were skeptical about the Egyptian influence on the modeling of Lady Wisdom (Whybray 1965; McKane 1970; Vawter 1980; Camp 1985), a growing number of scholars now accept it (Cannuyer 2001; Schweitzer 2012; Dell 2006, p. 143; Lazaridis 2007; Keel 1974). Below is an excerpt from Bálint Zábán’s review of current research on Proverbs 1–9. In it, he suggests that the relationship between God and his wisdom in Proverbs 8:30–31 was modeled on the relationship between Ra and Ma’at in Egyptian mythology:

‘Therefore, the ‘playing’ (משׂחקת) of Wisdom in 8:30c is not the play of a child but it alludes to the way in which Wisdom ‘entertained’ God. The imagery is of course provided by the Egyptian practice according to which a woman or goddess entertained a king or a higher god in different ways such as by dancing, acrobatics or cracking jokes in order to swing him into a good and humorous disposition. On the basis of the iconographical evidence such activities were enacted by the goddess Hathor. Apparently though, the figure of Ma’at is more likely to have been the model for 8:30–31.

(Zabán 2008, p. 630)

These ideas reappear in the late Persian period, as evidenced by the 4th-century BCE Bremner-Rhind hieratic papyrus (BM 10188). Version A of the papyrus contains a creation myth recounting how the solar god Khepera created all things in accordance with Ma’at:

‘I am he, who came into being in the form of the god Khepera, and I am the creator of that which came into being, that is to say, I am the creator of everything which came into being. Now the things which I created, and which came forth out of my mouth after that I had come into being myself were exceedingly many. The sky (or heaven) had not come into being, the earth did not (exist, and the children of the earth, and the creeping things had not been made at that time. I myself raised them up from out of Nu, from a state of helpless inertness. I found no place whereon I could stand. I worked a charm upon my own heart (or, will). I laid the foundation [of things] by Ma’at, and I made everything which had form… I laid the foundations [of things] in my own heart, and there came into being multitudes of created things, which came into being from the created things which were born from the created things which arose from what they brought forth’.

This myth reflects the Memphite theology, which states that creation was brought into existence by the spoken word of the god Khepera, and that created things came into being from what he conceived in his heart. This process is described in a manner similar to the creation described in Gen 1, and in Prov 8 and Sir 24. In the Egyptian papyrus, the goddess Ma’at is seen alongside the solar god prior to the beginning of creation, and is depicted with maternal imagery such as ‘giving birth’ and ‘bringing forth’.

This theology was transmitted by Egyptian priestly circles for millennia, and revived in the Hellenistic period, when Isis became the most popular goddess. Cannuyer suggests that the development of Lady Wisdom in Prov 8–9 and Wis 9–10 is closely related to the aretalogies of Isis, which, in turn, are connected to ancient traditions related to Ma’at and Hathor, as recorded in the Coffin Texts (Cannuyer 2001, pp. 33–34). These traditions were later adopted by the goddess Isis, who, unlike Ma’at, has always been perceived as a personal deity: a woman, a wife, and a compassionate mother. She is described as participating in creation and the judgment of the deceased, granting immortality to the wise and good. During the Ptolemaic period, she expresses herself through first-person discourses.

Below is an excerpt from an inscription carved on marble stele 302/0204, originating from a temple dedicated to Isis at Kymé and dating to the 1st century AD (Bricault 2005, pp. 422–24):

‘I established the laws for men, and the laws I established can never be changed.

I am the venerable daughter of Kronos. I am the wife and sister of King Osiris. (…)

I am the mother of King Horus (…) I am the one called ‘divinity’ among women

………………………………………………………………………………………….

I have separated the earth from the sky. I have indicated the paths of the stars (…)

I gave force to law.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

I decreed that truth would be judged beautiful (…)

I wanted nature to distinguish beauty from ugliness (…)

I impose punishment on those who act unjustly.

Justice is powerful with me.

I am the mistress of the rivers, the winds, and the sea (…)

What seems good to me is accomplished. Everything is modeled on me (…)

I triumph over fate. I am obeyed by fate.’

These aretalogies are indeed one of the religion of Isis’s defining features. Although they were first recorded in Greek texts in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, they originate from earlier sources that adapted the figure of the goddess Ma’at to that of Isis. Several authors have recognized this borrowing and dated Prov. 1–9 to the 3rd century BCE (Knox 1937; Blenkinsopp 1995; Schweitzer 2012).

5. The Echoes of Egyptian qn/qny in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint

As cognate forms, the Egyptian qn/qny and the Hebrew קנה share a common semantic field with related meanings such as ‘to give birth’, ‘to conceive’, and ‘to embrace’. In the Hebrew Bible, Eve ‘conceived’ Cain through God, as described in Gen 4:1:

‘And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she was pregnant (ותּהר), and gave birth (ותלד) Cain, and said I have conceived (קניתי) a man from the LORD’.

(Gen 4:1 TM)

Note that the Hebrew version uses two different verbs to describe the human actions such as ‘being pregnant’ and ‘giving birth’, reserving the form קנה for the act of ‘conception’ by God.

Of all the possible meanings of קנה, ‘to embrace’ seems to fit better when wisdom is operating at an ethical level:

‘The beginning of wisdom is: embrace (קנה) wisdom; and within your entire bosom (קננך), embrace (קנה) understanding’.

(Prov 4:7)

The text clearly refers to the ethical dimension, yet most English translations render the term קנה as ‘to acquire’ or ‘to obtain’ (NAB, NAS, NET, NJV, NKJV, RSV, and TNIV).4 The verb ‘acquire’ has such a commercial connotation that it is proposed as a synonym of buy by the Cambridge Dictionary. Some translations opting for the meaning ‘to acquire’ add the additional phrase ‘to the cost of all you have’ (NJB; TNIV) to the term קנינך, which pushes the meaning of the whole passage towards the dubious advice: ‘Buy wisdom even if it is too expensive!’

The figurative language of ‘embracing wisdom’ associated with the form קנה can also be found in other passages in the Book of Proverbs:

‘The heart of the prudent embraces (יקנה) knowledge; and the ear of the wise seek knowledge’.

(Prov 18:15)

Embracing wisdom and good council, is a frequent metaphor when using the verb קנה in the Book of Proverbs (cf. Prov 1:5; 4:5.7; 15:32; 16:16; 17:16; 18:15; 19:8).

Moving outside wisdom literature, some of the songs in the Psalter bear a striking resemblance to Egyptian hymns (Auffret 1981; Koller 2022; Schipper 2014). Here, we also find metaphors of wisdom as ‘conceiving’ the inner self:

‘For Thou conceived (קנית) my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb’.

(Psa 139:13)

As we can see from the previous examples, the verb קנה is used at the cosmological and ethical levels in the Hebrew Bible, to mean ‘to conceive’ and ‘to embrace’, in a manner similar to the way in which the Egyptian religion speaks of Ma’at and Isis.

The Greek translator of the Book of Sirach proves to be aligned with this option, as he chooses the verb κτίζω to express those ideas related with the cosmic and ethical realm. Such metaphorical language about wisdom is used in the Septuagint’s rhetoric when describing the origin of Lady Wisdom, who is said to have been conceived by God:

‘To fear the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and it was conceived with (συνεκτίσθη) the faithful in the womb’.

(Sir 1:14)

‘Wisdom hath been conceived (ἔκτισται) before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting’.

(Sir 1:4)

‘He conceived (ἔκτισεν) her, and saw her, and numbered her, and poured her out upon all his works’.

(Sir 1:9)

‘So the One who conceives (ὁ κτίστης) all things gave me a commandment, and he that conceived me (ὁ κτίσας με) caused my tabernacle to rest, and said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob, and establish inheritance in Israel. He conceived me from (ἔκτισέν) the beginning before the world, and I shall never fail.’

(Sir 24:8.9)

When the verb κτίζω is used in the Septuagint in a creation context, the translation ‘conceiving’ is more fitting, while ‘to embrace’ fits better in an ethical context. In a creation context, this conveys the idea of the eternal genesis of wisdom from God without affecting his unity and immutability. It also preserves the notion that the creation of the world is a subsequent act of God, whereby he creates the world through his wisdom acting on an ontological level. In an ethical context, the verb fits the description of wisdom interacting with human beings to such an intimate degree as implied by the love imagery associated with the Egyptian form qny.

Similar ideas about wisdom are applied to Jesus in the New Testament, using the same language of the Septuagint. In Pauline literature, we find references to Jesus’ involvement in ethics:

‘For we are His workmanship (ποίημα), conceived (κτισθέντες) in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them’

(Eph 2:10)

Note that, in this passage, Paul uses the terms ποίημα and κτισθέντες following the Alexandrian pattern of the Septuagint and Philo. He is not referring to the creation of a new human race, but to the regeneration of humanity in Christ (cf. Eph 4:24): ‘The result is that we are a product of God’s creative work and power. We have been made alive in Christ for good works’ (Bock 2019, p. 72).

In another Pauline hymn, we find Jesus being conceived by God, and also conceiving and sustaining the existence of the world:

‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all conceived (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως). For by Him all things were conceived (ἐκτίσθη), both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been conceived (ἔκτισται) by Him and for Him’.

(Col 1:15–16)

Christ is described as Lord and Mediator over all things. By using the term πρωτότοκος, the whole creation is considered as receiving the action of the Son. Paul assures that the Son is not one of the creatures, but that the whole creation exists in a relationship of existence and dependence upon him: ‘When read, then, in the light of the succeeding verses, the two important ideas of priority in existence and sovereignty in power unite in the expression’ (McDonald 1980, p. 48). Clearly, the writer of this hymn was familiar with the Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos and applied it to Christ (Wilson 2005, p. 124). However, the issue of translation arises once again, as κτίζω is usually translated as ‘to create’ (ASV, DBY, DRA, ERV, ESV, GNV, KGJ, KJV, MIT, NAB, NAS, NET, NIV, NJV, and others), which blurs the subsequent theology of the text.

6. The Verb κτίζω and the Early Christological Controversies

The precision in the terminology of the Septuagint proved to be very helpful at the time of the arrival of Christianity, as the nuances of the semantic fields of the verbs κτίζω and γεννάω were central in the debates when defining the relationship between God and his Son, the Creator and his creatures, and Christ as the incarnation of God’s wisdom.

The redactors of the Gospel of John, particularly those responsible for the Prologue, adopted the concept of the Logos, which was already present in Greek philosophy and the writings of Philo, and applied it to the figure of Christ as the Son of God (Brown 1999, pp. 64–82; Borgen 2014, pp. 43–66). However, their Christological developments also drew on the concept of divine wisdom, as set out in the Greek Books of Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom (Hannah 1999, pp. 80–81). Although the verb κτίζω is absent from John’s Gospel, the verb γεννάω is used to depict the eternal origin of the Logos (ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν (Joh 1:13)).

Similar Christological developments can also be found in 1 Cor 8:6 and Eph 2:10 (Borgen 2014, pp. 67–77). In particular, Colossians 1:15–16 played a significant role in certain Eastern creed formulas, including those from Caesarea and Antioch (Latin version), as well as the Apostolic Constitutions (Kelly 2014, pp. 181–204; Skarsaune 1987). This passage has been used to argue that Christ was conceived as the Son of God prior to creation, and as the mediator of all that came into existence.

Later, in the 3rd century, scholars of the Alexandrian School developed more precise categories to define Christ’s role as the Son of God, although building upon earlier hermeneutical traditions. For the sake of brevity in this work, I will only refer to the exegesis of Origen and Clement. The former’s is closer to the Bible, while the latter’s is more allegorical.

Origen, one of the most brilliant minds of the early church, frequently quoted and alluded to Prov 8:22, closely following the Septuagint’s language and using the verbs κτίζω and γεννάω, but rarely ποιέω (Soler 2024). In the first chapter of his Commentary on John, he explores the relationship between the Father and the Son by quoting biblical passages, closely following the language of the Septuagint:

‘(l09) Although so many meanings of “beginning” have occurred to us at the present time, we are investigating how we ought to take the statement, “In the beginning was the Word (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (Joh 1:1)) “ It is clear that we are not to understand it in its meaning related to change, or a way and length. And we should certainly not take it in its meaning related to genesis (γενέσεως). (110) But it is possible that he is the ‘by which (ὑφ᾽ οὗ)’, which is effective, since “God commanded and they were conceived (καὶ ἐγενήθησαν αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν (Psa 148:5)).” For Christ is perhaps the demiurge (δημιουργὸς) to whom the Father says, ‘Let there be light (γενηθήτω φῶς (Gen 1:3)),’ and ‘Let there be a firmament (γενηθήτω στερέωμα (Gen 1:6))’, (111) But it is as the beginning that Christ is demiurge (δημιουργὸς), according to which he is wisdom. Therefore as wisdom he is called the beginning. For wisdom says in Solomon, ‘God conceived me the beginning of his ways for his works (κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ (Prov 8:22))’ that ‘the Word might be in the beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (Joh 1:1))’ in wisdom. It is wisdom which is understood, on the one hand, taken in relation to the structure of the contemplation and thoughts of all things, but it is the Logos (τοῦ λόγου) which is received, taken in relation to the communication of the things which have been contemplated to spiritual beings.’5

The italics are mine to highlight that Origen develops the figure of the Logos in a similar way to Philo in Opificio mundi (Op. 1:17.19.24). Even though Origen makes allusion to Gen 1:1 and Joh 1:1—both verses beginning with the same enunciation, Ἐν ἀρχῇ, to evoke a new creation—he understands them to refer to different, albeit related, cosmogonies.

When quoting Prov 8:22, Origen follows the Greek text usually known as the ‘Old Greek’ text (OT), which he includes in his monumental work, the Hexapla, alongside three other Greek versions available at that time known as the versions of Aquila, Teodotion, and Symmachus. All three translated the Hebrew term קנני in Prov 8:22, by the middle form ἐκτήσατο, in order to explain the origin of wisdom, and depict her as being completely subordinate to God. However, when quoting Prov 8:22 in his Commentary, Origen prefers the active aorist form ἔκτισέν provided in his OT Greek text.

The tension between these translations reveals that conflicts surrounding the understanding of the Septuagint were not confined to Christian circles, but also affected Jewish circles who disagree with the Old Greek text. However, it may also highlight a second issue that developed within Judaism: the ‘Two Powers in Heaven’ concept, which involved interpreting scripture to suggest that an angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven, such as Wisdom, may be considered equivalent to God. This concept was heretical in rabbinic circles because it challenged monotheism.6

Let us continue with a further development in Origen’s Commentary on John I:

‘(113) But consider if it is possible also for us to take the statement, “In the beginning was the Word” (Joh 1:1), in accordance with this meaning, so that all things came to be (τὰ πάντα γίνεται) in accordance with the wisdom and plans of the system of thoughts. (114) For I think that just as a house and a ship are built or devised according to the plans of the architect, the house and the ship having as their beginning the plans and thoughts in the craftsman, so all things have come to be according to the thoughts of what will be, which were prefigured by God in wisdom, ‘For he made all things in wisdom (πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας (Psa 103:24 LXX)).’

Here again, Origen quotes Joh 1:1 and reserves the verb γεννάω for the genesis of the Logos as wisdom by which everything came through existence following the plans of God. But he also quotes Psa 103:24 LXX literally, using the verb ποιέω in relation to the wise act of God in creation as in Gen 1:1, keeping in mind that all things exist by his wisdom, as he obviously alludes to the whole verse, where the terms קנינך and κτήσεώς are present in its second unquoted part.7 As Kraft explains when commenting Origen’s works: ‘The God of Origen does not in the strict sense of the term create; He begets from within Himself; and so the whole existing universe in its own degree shares in the existence of God Himself’ (Kraft 1964, p. 67).

Now, let us take a look at Origen’s teacher, Clement of Alexandria, who also developed his allegorical exegesis by appealing to Prov 8:22, and building on earlier Christological developments concerning the Johannine relationship between the Father and the Son (Bucur 2024).

In his Protrepticus, an exhortation to the pagans of Greece to adopt Christianity, Clement demonstrates his extensive knowledge of Greek mythology. There, he refers to what he terms the ‘mysteries of wisdom’ by quoting Prov 8:22 (Coxe 2016, p. 1202).

‘Why repeat to you the mysteries of wisdom, and sayings from the writings of the son of the Hebrews, the master of wisdom? “The Lord created me (κύριος ἔκτισέν με) the beginning of His ways, in order to His works.” And, “The Lord giveth wisdom, and from His face proceeds knowledge and understanding.’

(Protrepticus 8)

Clement urges Christians to abandon the worship of pagan deities and be initiated into the Holy Mysteries of God by using wisdom as their guide.

In Chapter III of his Comments on the First Epistle of John, Clement alludes to Gen 1:1 and to Joh 1:1, when explaining the generation without beginning of the Son:

‘Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle. What therefore he says, “from the beginning,” the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, “That which was from the beginning,” he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an un-beginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, “In the beginning was the Word”.’

Unfortunately, the original Greek text of this commentary has been lost, and only a translation by Cassiodorus from the late 6th century remains. Nevertheless, it is useful for illustrating the doctrine of eternal generation in Clement, most likely in the context of the Valentinian heresies (Edwards 2000).

At the beginning of the 4th century, the verbs κτίζω and γεννάω were at the center of Christological controversies, particularly those raised by Arius. He denied the consubstantiality between the Father and the Son based on his interpretation of κτίζω as ‘to create’, and thus rejecting any trace of emanation related to the verb γεννάω and the term ἀπόρροια (Simonetti 1975, p. 48). His ideas are present in a letter written by Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia (§ 3–4), where he states:

‘But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach?—that the Son is not un-begotten, nor a part of an un-begotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting (ὑπέστη) in will and intention before time and before the ages, full <of grace and truth>, God, the only-begotten (μονογενές), unchangeable. Before he was begotten (γεννηθῇ), or created (κτισθῆ), or defined, or established, he did not exist (οὐκ ἦν)’.8

Apparently, Arius perceived the verbs κτίζω and γεννάω to be similar in meaning and denied that they referred to the ontological aspects of creation. Furthermore, he used the term ὑπέστη (a hapax legomenon used in the Num 22:26 LXX) to describe the origin of the Son. The term ὑπέστη is an aorist active form of the verb ὑφίστημι, meaning in classical literature ‘to hold out against or survive a powerful force, resist, face, endure’, but it is clearly alien to the wisdom literature of the Bible. The reasons why Arius used this terminology exceed this article, but show how he used a biased language when referring to the origin of the Logos.

In response, the Nicene Fathers proclaimed in the Creed the use of the verb γεννάω to describe the divine origin of the Son of God, emphasizing that he was begotten, not made. But here again, we should be very careful, as there are no official records of the final enunciation of the symbol. What we have is a reconstruction from indirect sources.

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker (ποιητήν) of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten (γεννηθέντα) of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made (οὐ ποιηθέντα), consubstantial (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father’.

(Kelly 2014, pp. 215–16)

Interestingly, the Creed applied the verb ποιέω to the Father alone, as the One who makes all things, and did not apply it when describing the origin of the Son. Yet, they retained the concept of generation of the Son by using the verb γεννάω, and confirmed his divine character by using the term ὁμοούσιον.

Once again, the language of the Greek versions of Proverbs and the Greek Apocrypha, as provided by the Septuagint, proved useful in achieving the precise wording required for the Nicene Creed. This Creed expressed the prevalence of the concepts of the generation and conception of God’s wisdom, which were so highly regarded in Alexandrian circles.

7. Conclusions

By choosing the verb κτίζω rather than ποιέω to describe the origins of divine wisdom, the Septuagint emphasized the immaterial nature of the objects to which κτίζω applies. This is also evident in the works of Philo, where nouns and verbs related to κτίζω are associated with mental processes rather than the material world. This terminology is very useful when preserving the immutability of God as the generator of his divine wisdom, rather than the creator of something completely different.

The Egyptian context influenced the Jewish Alexandrian elites during the Ptolemaic period, leaving traces in the books and translations of the Septuagint (Turalija 2017). Even when the Greek Apocrypha attempted to preserve Judaism against Egyptian religion, reinterpretations of Gen 1 in wisdom literature demonstrate evidence of this influence, emphasizing wisdom in a manner similar to how the Egyptian goddesses Ma’at and Isis emerged from the solar god to participate in creation and ethical matters.

Those circles were also aware of the linguistic relationship between the Hebrew verb קנה and its Egyptian cognate qny/qn when used in contexts of creation, and the metaphors of love and light that were related to this common theme in both languages. Interestingly, these traces can be found in the Hebrew version of Prov 8:22, which is believed to predate the Hellenistic period during which the Septuagint was compiled. One would logically expect the Egyptian context to have influenced the later Greek version. However, the Hebrew version of Book of Proverbs reveals that the Egyptian influence predates the Hellenistic period and extends beyond the language of admonition developed in other chapters.

Drawing on the Egyptian context and previous wisdom literature, the Jewish writers selected the verb קנה and translated it as κτίζω, using it both at cosmological and ethical levels. In each context, these verbs had different nuances and meanings: ‘to conceive’ in the former and ‘to embrace’ in the latter.

A misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘to create’ in both the Hebrew verb קנה and the Greek verb κτίζω underestimates the efforts of the Alexandrian circles to develop precise language when describing the different cosmogonies at stake in the Bible, which were defended by each party during the controversies.

Translating the Hebrew word קנני and the Greek word ἔκτισέν in Prov 8:22, both as ‘created me’ has multiple consequences. This misinterprets the nuances of the passages in which they appear and obscures the analysis of what really happened in the Christological controversies that sought support in the Bible.

On the other hand, recognizing the accuracy of the language used in the Septuagint’s cosmological and theological developments reveals the unwavering commitment of the Church Fathers to the biblical texts, as well as their profound understanding of the implicit hermeneutics of each passage.

We must accept that the Christian School of Alexandria could only have been great because of its glorious past. As Coxe says (Coxe 2016, p. 2004):

‘Every Christian must recognize the career of Alexander, and the history of his empire, as an immediate precursor of the Gospel. The patronage of letters by the Ptolemy at Alexandria, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the dialect of the Hellenes, the creation of a new terminology in the language of the Greeks, by which ideas of faith and of truth might find access to the mind of a heathen world,—these were preliminaries to the preaching of the Gospel to mankind, and to the composition of the New Testament of our Lord and Savior. He Himself had prophetically visited Egypt, and the idols were now to be removed before his presence. There a powerful Christian school was to make itself felt forever in the definitions of orthodoxy; and in a new sense was that prophecy to be understood, “Out of Egypt have I called my Son”.’