It's meant as a type (see typology), which could be applied to Jesus Christ, but cannot be literally identified with Him. First of all, Proverbs is a wisdom book, that's how it shall be interpreted. This biblical verse caused much controversy during the Arian controversy in AD. in the 4th century.
Arius' view was summarized in their phrase "there was a time when the Son was not." As you've noted, they interpreted Proverbs 8:22, and specifically the verb ἔκτισέ με in the ancient Greek translation (Septuagint), to support this view. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, rejected this interpretation and maintained that the Son is of the same substance as the Father and is co-eternal with the Father.
It should be highlighted the complexity of Greek and Hebrew words that are often translated into English as "created." In the original languages of the Bible, these words often carried a range of meanings, and their interpretation can greatly influence one's understanding of the nature of Jesus.
Even ancient Jewish Bible translators (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus) preferred to translate the verb in Proverbs 8:22 as ἐκτήσατο, meaning "acquired" or "possessed." ἐκτήσᾰτο (ektḗsato) is the third-person singular aorist middle indicative of κτάομαι (ktáomai), meaning:
- (transitive) to get, obtain, acquire, gain, win
- (transitive, of consequences) to bring on oneself, incur
- (transitive, perfect and pluperfect) to have acquired, have, own, possess
In the Book of Proverbs, the Hebrew verb qānāh (קָנָה) is often translated as 'get', 'acquire', or 'gain' in many English translations, in the Book of Proverbs in all instances, qānāh denotes the act of obtaining or acquiring wisdom or knowledge.
Jerome argues that the correct translation of "קנני" (qānānî) in Proverbs 8:22 is "possessed" rather than "created." He bases his argument on the distinction between the Hebrew words for "create" (ברא, bārā) and "possess" (קנה, qānāh). The verb bārā (בָּרָא), which means 'create' in Hebrew, is indeed used throughout the Bible to denote the divine act of creating. This verb is exclusively used for divine creation in the Hebrew Bible. It conveys a sense of the initiation of something new, bringing something into existence that was not there before.
But even the translation of the LXX is not suitable to justify Arianism. For instance, the Greek word ἔκτισέ (ektise) does indeed have nuances. While it often means "created," it can also be understood in the sense of "established" or "ordained." ἔκτισέ in the context of Proverbs 8:22 doesn't mean that Wisdom (interpreted as the Son or Christ) was created, in the sense of being brought into existence, but rather that the Son was appointed or established as The Beginning (principle, archē) of God's ways. Furthermore, discussing the nature of biblical language, especially focusing on the meaning of the term ἔκτισέν (ektisen) which is often translated as "created", it can be argued that in the context of passages such as Proverbs 8:22, this term does not denote creation out of nothing, but rather a form of making or establishing.
The Arians used the ἔκτισέν με (He "created" me...) as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus (the Son is not begotten, but made), i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο (He acquired me...), and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισέν (He "created"...) of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum [=God created me as king or head of his works]; Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum [=He did not create me according to substance, but established me as The Beginning and foundation of the whole universe]). Thus, the Son is not a created being, but rather eternally begotten, sharing the same divine essence with the Father.
This is further supported by differentiating between the concepts of "made" and "begotten." In Christian belief, "made" implies creation from nothing or from pre-existing materials, while "begotten" suggests an eternal relationship, with no beginning, between the Father and the Son. So, Christ is considered "begotten, not made", which means he shares the same divine nature with the Father and wasn't created at a certain point in time.
Should the LXX version of Proverbs 8:22 be understood as the Arians understood it, or as a double accusative like Athanasius and the orthodox church fathers? The verb κτίζω in Greek can take a double accusative to mean "to make somebody (into) something", for example: "I make you king", "I set you free". If the translators of the Septuagint had interpreted Qānānî rēʾšît̲ darkōw as an adverbial usage, according to which it is interpreted as an adverbial phrase indicating when the action took place, they would have translated it like this:
κύριος ἔκτισέν με εν ἀρχῇ ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ ("The LORD created/made me at/in the beginning of his ways...")
But it was not translated that way, there is no preposition 'en' (in/at) before the word archē (as in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ...", "in the beginning..."), and the archē is in accusative (ἀρχὴν), and instad of that, the text was rendered as:
κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ ("The LORD made me (into/as/to be) the 'arkhe' of his ways...")
So the translators of the LXX did not understand the Hebrew text of this verse to mean that 'chokmah' is the first creature that was created "in/at the beginning", rather, that through the act described by the verb qānāh, the Lady Wisdom became the archē (first principle) or rēʾšît̲ of the the (creative) ways of Yahweh.
Symmachus' translation managed to capture the idea of the Hebrew text the best:
Κύριος έκτήσατό με ἀρχὴν όδών αύτοΰ (“The LORD acquired me as the first principle (archē) of his ways...”).
So Symmachus interprets qānānî as "acquired" too, and notices that it is a double accusative.
The double accusative construction in Hebrew is somewhat limited and doesn't have as wide a range as in some other languages like Greek. However, it is indeed possible to use certain verbs with what appear to be two direct objects in Hebrew.
The structure of the Hebrew text of Proverbs 8:22 isn't a classic example of the double accusative as seen in languages like Greek, where one verb governs two direct objects without a preposition, but in the context of this verse, the structure indeed does allow for an interpretation akin to the accusative of result seen in some languages.
Qānānî rēʾšît̲ darkōw in principle could be understood as an adverbial usage ("in/at the beginning of His way"), but also as a quasi-accusative of result: "The LORD made/acquired me as The Beginning (archē, first principle) of His way." In this interpretation, rēʾšît̲ functions similarly to an accusative of result, indicating what the subject becomes or is made as a result of the verb. This interpretation is close to the double accusative construction in languages like Greek.
Thus you can interpret rēʾšît̲ in a way that mirrors the accusative of result, where the action of the verb brings about a certain state or transformation for the object. In this reading, God's act of acquiring/creating results in Wisdom being "The Beginning (principle, archē) of His way."
I see absolutely no reason for temporality here: rēʾšît̲ darkōw (ראשיט דרקו, rey-SHEET dahr-KOHV) rather means "as The Beginning of his ways", than "at/in the beginning of his ways".
The term rēʾšît̲ comes from the word 'rosh', which means head, so rēʾšît̲ can also mean chief, similar to the Greek archē.
In Aquila's Greek translation of the Hebrew text, the word "κεφάλαιον" (kephalaion) is used to render the Hebrew word rēʾšît̲. "Kephalaion" in Greek can be understood to mean "chief", "head" or "principal." In the context of this translation, it emphasizes the speaker as the "chief", "head" or "principal" of God's ways or works, highlighting their central and foundational role in God's creative process.
The Vulgate translates rēʾšît̲ as 'initium', meaning "beginning" or "origin."
Someone can become something (in this case, Wisdom is made the Beginning [archē] of all things, as Eusebius explains, following Psalm 50:12 LXX — where the heart is made clean — and 1 Peter 2:13, where people become — or are invested as — kings and rulers).
So even translating qānānî as "created" does not cause problem theologically, because the use of a double accusative with the verb "create" can change the nuance of the verb's meaning. In this context, the double accusative could imply a more specific role or function rather than the act of bringing something into existence by the divine act of creation "ex nihilo".
In many languages, including Hebrew, double accusatives can bring about a shift in meaning, especially when used with certain verbs. The direct object becomes the recipient of the action, and the secondary object becomes the result or product of the action. So, in the case of Proverbs 8:22, if we read the verb "create" with a double accusative, it could indeed suggest that Wisdom was not so much "created" in the sense of being brought into existence, but rather "ordained", "constituted", "installed" or "appointed" to a specific role or function as the "archē" of God's (creative) works.
Thus, the translation "The Lord ordained/appointed me as (to be) The Beginning (archē, principle) of his works" would capture this nuance, emphasizing Wisdom's unique and foundational role in God's actions, without necessarily implying that Wisdom was created in the sense of coming into existence. This rendering maintains the primacy and importance of Wisdom without delving into the theological intricacies of its eternity versus created nature.
While the Hebrew verb qānāh itself might imply "creation", the double accusative structure nuances that creation towards a more specific role, designation, or function. This can provide a safeguard against any theological implications that Wisdom (often equated with Christ in Christian interpretations) was a creation in the traditional sense. Symmachus' translation does seem to capture this nuance very well, indicating a specialized role or function rather than just existence.
Revelation 1:6 (in the Greek New Testament) features a construction similar to what we were discussing.
καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ ("And He has made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father..."
In this verse, the verb ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen) can be translated as "created", "made" or "constituted". The direct object is "us" (ἡμᾶς) and the resultative secondary objects are "a kingdom" (βασιλείαν) and "priests" (ἱερεῖς). The function of these believers is defined by their relationship "to His God and Father" (τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ).
This structure, similar to the double accusative in Hebrew, indicates that believers are made both a "kingdom" and "priests". It isn't just that they were created, but they were appointed or designated for a specific role or function, which is in line with the nuance of "ordain" or "appoint" that we discussed earlier.
Therefore, the construction in Revelation 1:6 is not merely about existence, but about designation to a specific role or status in relation to God.
In summary, even if we apply this literally to Christ, it cannot be applied to support Arian Christology.
In the Hebrew text, the construct rē’šît darkô from Proverbs 8:22 does present some challenges in interpretation. Let's analyze the potential justification for the double accusative interpretation:
The Nature of the Verb: The qānāh primarily means "to get, acquire," but in some contexts, it can have the meaning "to create." When it comes to transitive verbs like qānāh, it is possible for the verb to take two direct objects. This is especially true if one object specifies what is acquired/created, and the other provides additional information about the acquisition/creation.
Absence of a Preposition: In Hebrew, if rēʾšît̲ darkōw were serving purely as a temporal adverbial modifier, one might expect a preposition like ב (b-, "in/at") to be present, making it "ברֵאשִׁית דַּרְכֹּו" (b-rē’šît darkô) which would clearly indicate "AT/IN the beginning of his ways." The absence of such a preposition implies a double accusative reading.
Parallelism in Hebrew Poetry: Hebrew poetry, such as that found in Proverbs, often uses parallel structures. Later in the chapter, there are other references to Wisdom's primacy or precedence, such as in Proverbs 8:23, where Wisdom is described as being established "from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was." This primacy could support reading rēʾšît̲ darkōw as a description of Wisdom's chief or primary role, rather than merely a temporal starting point.
Resonance with rēʾšît̲ (רֵאשִׁית) in Other Texts: The term rēʾšît̲ also appears at the very beginning of the Hebrew Bible in Genesis 1:1, "ברֵאשִׁית" (B-rē’šît, "In the beginning"). While in Genesis, it is more clearly temporal due to the preposition, its prominence as the first word of the Torah might influence readings in other texts. Its use in Proverbs 8:22 could evoke not just the idea of temporality but also primacy or precedence.
Contextual Flow: Proverbs 8 is a personification of Wisdom speaking about her origins and significance. Given the context of the whole chapter, which underscores Wisdom's foundational role in creation and her intimate relationship with the Creator, the double accusative reading "as The Beginning/Chief of his ways" emphasizes Wisdom's inherent value and role in the divine order.
Given these factors, while both interpretations have their merits, the arguments for a double accusative reading in the Hebrew are compelling. Still, as with many ancient texts, certainty is elusive, and interpretations may vary based on theological, linguistic, or contextual considerations.
Overall, I would translate it like this:
"The LORD acquired me as his (first) principle..."
or
"The LORD brought me forth (or gave me birth) me as his (first) principle..."