5. For someone who is always trying to get out of ‘rules,’ it is surprising to find him try to make one. See his discussions on Jn 1:1 and Tit. 2:13 on how desperate he is to eliminate valid rules. Now he will probably deny he is making a rule. But he does not have to use the word rule. Notice the language he is using: ‘always denotes a beginning.’ What if this rule is broken on a regular basis? His ‘always’ disappears. Could it be he is for rules if it is against the Deity of Christ and against rules if they are for the Deity of Christ? (Rhetorical question) Rev. 3:14 is an example that refutes his rule. Why should the analysis of arch be limited to the New Testament? Mr. Stafford doesn’t when he is dealing with other passages. His rule is more coincidence rather than some statistical discovery. Here is a list of occurrences in the LXX of arch followed by a genitive expression: Gen. 1:16, 40:20; Ex. 6:25; Psalm 109:3, 136:6; Prov. 17:14; Jer. 22:6; Dan. 6:26, 7:12, 11:41; Amos 6:11; Ob. 20; Mic. 3:1. As can be seen from these passages, a genitive expression is not a contextual marker for arch to mean ‘beginning.’ Here are some examples outside of the New Testament: Sirach 11:3 kai arch glukasmatwn o karpos auths (but her fruit is the chief of sweet things), Sirach 39:26, Enoch 6:8, Sibylline Oracles 3:784, 8:143, Life of Adam and Eve 39:2, Philo Creation 57, 67, Confu 193, Heir 62, Dream 2.284, 2.290. Here is a very interesting statement by Philo in Heir 172, “arch men gar genesws o qeos (for God is the beginning of all generation). I think we can see that Mr. Stafford’s grammatical observation (rule) is non-existent. In Thucydides Historiae, arch is used 129 times. Some type of authority is the meaning in 100 of the uses. That is approximately 78%. All kinds of grammar is used: nominative, dative, genitive, and accusative. Isocrates in Panegyricus section 72 line 3 uses arch modified by a genitive, and it still meant sovereignty. In Plato Leges page 809 section a line 1, he used arch modified by a genitive and it means ruler. A true point of grammar that Mr. Stafford misses is that a genitive of agency is rare. As D.B. Wallace stated in his grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, page 126, “The genitive will normally be related to an adjective that (a) is substantival (i.e., in place of a noun), (b) ends in –tos, and (c) implies a passive idea.” One would expect to find upo with the genitive.
6. Please disregard what I wrote in the previous revision(1) of this paper. Thanks to Kaz and Luis, I have found my error. The following is my correction. Mr. Stafford’s quote from BAGD has been upgraded from “linguistically possible” to “linguistically probable” in the BDAG third edition. The questions to ask here are why this upgrade to 'probable,' and how does he define arch in Rev. 3:14? So I wrote Professor Danker and said, “Third, the reason I am writing you is to ask why you made a certain change in one of the entries of your lexicon. It is under the word arch. In your previous edition, you had referenced Rev. 3:14 and said that the gloss ‘beginning’ was possible. In your new edition, you changed the word ‘possible’ to ‘probable’. When I compare the two editions of the lexicon, I can not figure out what the reasoning is behind the change. Could you tell me what the reason was for the change? I have always thought that arch in that passage meant ‘origin’ or ‘ruler’. If you think beginning is the meaning there, do you think it is teaching that Jesus is created by God?” Professor Danker wrote back, “The term “possible” is rather vague. “Probable”, therefore, is the stronger term, when supporting evidence can be offered. Hence I used the term “probable” in connection with the item you note. Linguistic support can be given for the interpretation. This is precisely what I stated, for it was only fair that I alert the user of the lexicon to a responsibly offered alternative. In response to your further query, I do not think that Rev. 3:14 teaches that Jesus Christ is “created by God.: Christ is given equal status with the Father in responsibility for the existence of everything.” I should have asked what the supporting evidence was explicitly because I was wanting that also. I was assuming this information would be included in his answer to me. I assumed wrong. I found that I had misunderstood the entry in the lexicon and Professor Danker's letter to me. I had thought that the entry in his lexicon meant that the meaning of arch in Rev. 3:14 was first created. Now I understand from his letter it was a linguistic alternative not equative with first cause. I thought he meant an alternative way to translate arch. I was wrong. So he wasn't saying first created was the probable meaning to Rev. 3:14. I needed more information, so I wrote him a second time and asked, “Since you do not think that Rev. 3:14 teaches that Jesus Christ is created, what do you think is the proper interpretation of “the beginning of God's creation”? He wrote back and stated, “My definition of “beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is indicated by the bold Roman font “the first cause.” The gloss “beginning” is to be understood in that sense.” So his interpretation of arch in Rev. 3:14 is first cause by being placed under arch (3) in the lexicon. I think this means to us who are trying to understand Rev. 3:14 that it boils down to the data with the interpretation of this passage.
7. Again I say that his rule is coincidence. Here is a list from the LXX of ARCHE denoting ‘government’ and ‘ruler’ without “…other expressions denoting “power” or “authority…”: Gen. 1:18, 40:13, 20,21, 41:13; Ex. 6:25; Deut. 17:18, 20; 1 Chron. 26:10; Neh. 9:17; Psalm 109:3, 138:17; Isa. 9:5-6, 10:10, 41:27, 42:10; Jer. 13:21, 30:2; Ezk. 29:15; Dan. 6:26, 7:12, 11:41; Hos. 1:11; Amos 6:1; Obad. 20; Mic. 3:1; Naham 1:6, 3:8. In Thucydides in historiae book 1 chapter 128 section 4 and line 1, there is an example of arch meaning beginning in the presence of words of authority. Oops, there goes another Stafford rule. Based on these examples, arch can mean ‘ruler’ in Rev. 3:14. Actually, any nuance available to an author at any given point in history is possible. The question is what is probable.