Acts of Sent Away Ones 10

Land of Calves

The ethnonym Ἰταλός and toponym Ἰταλία derive from the Greek ἰταλός, ὁ, meaning “calf” (vitulus in Latin), sometimes extended to ταῦρος (“bull”) (Hesych.), from which the Zodiac "Taurus" comes. This reflects both lexical and symbolic associations with cattle in southern Italy. Ancient writers, including Hellanikos (as preserved in Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.35), note that the name originally referred to a small region in southern Calabria, abundant in calves, and from which the larger region eventually took its name. The Greek Ἰταλία is a direct adaptation of the Oscan Viteliu, “land of calves,” cognate with Latin vitulus. From the ethnonym Ἰταλός, the adjective Ἰταλικός (“Italian”) arises. Thus, the etymology traces a semantic development from calf → land of calves → inhabitant of Italy / Italian. The mythological king Ἰταλός is sometimes cited as the eponym of the region, reflecting the common Greek practice of personifying place-names through legendary figures.

(cf. ἰταλός, Wikipedia Name of Italy)

δεόμενος as simply “praying” is too narrow and not the most accurate rendering.

The verb δέομαι has a primary sense of “to be in want, to lack” (with genitive), from which the secondary sense “to entreat, beg, beseech” developed. In religious contexts, the latter often comes close to “praying,” but that is really a specialized usage of the more general “entreat, request.”

• “needing, lacking” (with genitive):

  • ὕδατος δεόμενος = “needing water.”

  • σοφίας δεόμενος = “lacking wisdom.”

• “begging, entreating, praying” (with genitive of thing asked, or accusative + infinitive of person + action):

  • ἐλέου δεόμενος = “begging for pity.”

  • θεοὺς δεόμενος = “entreating the gods.”

• General sense: “lacking, needing” → δεόμενος = “being in need” + genitive of thing needed

• Extended sense: “entreating, begging” → in sacred contexts, this can overlap with “praying,” but the core is “supplicating.”

Thus, glossing δεόμενος directly as “praying” would overspecify the meaning and obscure its broader semantic range.

(cf Slater, Abbott-Smith δέομαι)

πρόσπεινος literally carries the sense of “hungering toward”:

• πρός = toward, in the direction of

• πεινός = hungry

So the word conveys hunger as a motivating, goal-directed force, not merely “very hungry.”

It’s a coined or literary term, only found in the New Testament, emphasizing the dynamic or relational aspect of hunger — the person is actively driven or directed by hunger toward something (food, or figuratively toward fulfillment).

The Greek πρός in compounds adds directional/relational nuance rather than simple intensity.

See LSJ II. τὸ σ. the body, as the vessel of the soul, a metaph. clearly expressed in 2 Ep.Cor. 4.7, ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν, cf. 1 Ep.Thess. 4.4, 1 Ep.Pet. 3.7.

Lexical Scope of ἀρχή

From LSJ and early usage, ἀρχή had four primary meanings:

• Beginning / Origin (temporal or causal starting point).
• Principle / Element (philosophical, metaphysical foundation).
• Corner / Edge (physical extremity of a bandage, rope, sheet; cf. Hdt. 4.60).
• Sovereignty / Power / Authority (political or cosmic rule).

Thus ἀρχή already lives at the edge between time, space, matter, and rule.

Fourfold Extremities in a Möbius Model

If we imagine a Möbius strip divided into four quadrants (like “quarters” of the ribbon’s traversal), then ἀρχή would function at each “turn” as a different boundary-condition:

1. Temporal extremity — the “beginning/origin” of a narrative or cycle. (Gen 1:1: ἐν ἀρχῇ)
2. Spatial extremity — a corner, edge, or limit of extension (Acts 10:11: “the four ἀρχαί of the mega fine linen”).
3. Causal extremity — principle or source of action (Aristotle, Metaph. 983b: ἀρχή as first principle).
4. Political / Ontological extremity — sovereignty, dominion, or cosmic authority (Eph 6:12: αἱ ἀρχαί as powers).

Thus, four ἀρχαί = the four modes in which a “beginning” marks a limit, each quarter of the Möbius is not linear but a turn of orientation.

In Hebrew תוֹר (tor), from the root תור, denotes a turn, an order in sequence, or a rotation. It is used, for instance, in contexts of taking one’s turn (as in waiting in line or for succession). This is also the root of Torah (feminine). This is also the word used for "Esther's Turn"

This is significant in relation to a Möbius model:

• A tor is not merely a point, but a cyclical allotment — the moment when one’s place arrives in the cycle.
• Unlike ראשית / ἀρχή, which speaks of an origin/beginning, tor is about the iteration of turns within the ordered cycle.
• In biblical Hebrew it also shades into succession, prescribed order, duty (e.g. in priestly or cultic service, or Esther's turn).

Why Four?

• Biblical resonance: four rivers from Eden (Gen 2:10), four corners of the earth (Isa 11:12), four winds (Dan 7:2; Rev 7:1). Each is a way of encoding a totality through extremities.
• Philosophical resonance: Empedocles’ four roots (earth, air, fire, water); Aristotle’s four causes (material, formal, efficient, final).
• Linguistic resonance: ἀρχή naturally attaches both to origins and to extremities (“corners”), suggesting it can “fold” into spatial quadrants.

So the four ἀρχαί might encode the complete set of orientations — temporal, spatial, causal, sovereign.

Aonic Usage

On a Möbius strip, the traveler encounters each ἀρχή not as a discrete “first” but as a recursive turning-point where the surface flips. Thus:

• The temporal beginning loops back in the eschatological end (ἀρχή ↔ τέλος, cf. Rev 22:13).
• The corner/edge folds into the principle: the extremity reveals the foundation.
• The principle folds into sovereignty: what originates also rules.
• The sovereignty folds into temporal beginning again: the reign of God inaugurates the cycle anew.

This Möbius loop of ἀρχή explains why NT authors can use the same term for “Within the origin/head/beginning” (Jn 1:1), “first principles” (Heb 5:12), “rulers and authorities” (Col 1:16), and even “origins/edges” (Acts 10:11 LXX-echo).

Interpretive Implication

If Hebrew narrative provides the recursive structure (aspect, non-chronological), Greek ἀρχή supplies a nodal word where time, space, causality, and sovereignty meet. In Aonic perspective, the four ἀρχαί are not different domains but different orientations of one continuous surface.

Thus, “ἀρχή” is less “beginning” and more fold: each time the story turns, one meets an ἀρχή — which is also an extremity, also a sovereignty, also a principle.

Food for thought:

If we think Möbius-like, God becomes a paradox:

• Temporal ἀρχή = God as the First and the End (Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ).
• Spatial ἀρχή = God as the encompassing limit, boundary but also horizon.
• Causal ἀρχή = God as the source-principle (ὁ ἀρχὴν ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ).
• Sovereign ἀρχή = God as the ordering head, ruler, archon of all archai.

The NT authors consistently keep the discourse within ἀρχή. They never resolve it into the “philosophical absolute” of ἀνάρχος (without beginning), thus ἄναρχος (without chief, without beginning) is never used in the NT. This means:

1. John 1:1 — “ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος” → not “outside beginning,” but “within beginning.” John deliberately sets the Logos in relation to ἀρχή rather than beyond it.

2. Colossians 1:18 — Christ is “ἡ ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν” → Christ is named as the beginning, not as “the one without beginning.”

3. Revelation 21:6; 22:13 — “Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος” → God/Christ explicitly claims both origin and end, but never the “un-originated” category.

A Möbius band has one continuous surface, yet if you trace along it, you encounter orientation shifts (inside/outside inversion). If you quarter it (divide into four extremities or perspectives), you obtain four “faces” of one undivided thing.

This matches the ancient sense of ἀρχή as having multiple orientations:

• Temporal: beginning of time.
• Spatial: edge, boundary, extremity.
• Causal: first principle, source of action.
• Sovereign: rule, power, dominion.

If ἀρχή involves a Möbius-like surface that can be experienced in four orientations, then to be “quartered” (διαιρέω, διαμερίζω; or in Hebrew, perhaps פָּצָה, חָלַק, פָּרַד — to divide, portion, separate) would mean something quite radical:

• A whole person would translate to one continuous surface. As long as the person’s temporal, spatial, causal, and sovereign orientations are in continuity, the body is one being (integrated self) or an eternal aion self.
• A division into four would not mean four “parts,” but rather a rupture of the unity of orientation.
• To be “quartered” would mean to have the four extremities/origins no longer folded together but pulled apart:
  • Temporal quartering → life loses its flow, past/future no longer connect; the person feels torn between regret and fear.
  • Spatial quartering → the body is disjointed, no longer oriented in place (exile, scattering, dismemberment).
  • Causal quartering → actions no longer arise from a coherent self; one says and does contradictory things, agency fractures (e.g. "I don't do things I want to do...I do what I don't want to do...")
  • Sovereign quartering → no inner rule or center remains; the heart is divided, allegiance is split.

This is both anthropological and eschatological:

• A quartered person is fragmented in being.
• A quartered city/nation is dispersed, scattered to "the four winds."
• A quartered cosmos is chaos, no longer one continuous creation but torn into extremities.

In Hebrew prophecy a scattering “to the four winds” (זְרוֹת לְאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת) is divine judgment — the body politic—the People of God— is completely dismembered. In Greco-Roman imagery quartering a person was the ultimate destruction of bodily unity. In apocalyptic vision the “four beasts” (Dan. 7) or “four horsemen” (Rev. 6) point symbolically to a quartered world in which the continuous order has collapsed into extremities of chaos. To be “quartered” as a person would mean losing recursion (Möbius continuity), that is, the eternal aion life. Instead of one surface folding through four orientations, you are locked into separate compartments where your body is here, but your heart is elsewhere, your agency is in conflict, and your time is all but fractured. Such a person is alive but dis-integrated. You are no longer whole, but quartered—a dead one while yet living.

On the other hand, when the four orientations are harmonized (not quartered), the person becomes a living temple — four faces, one being (consider Ezekiel’s four living creatures, each facing outward yet united in one movement of the Spirit).

The verb ὑπάρχω (from ὑπό + ἄρχω, “to begin under”) carries richer ontological nuance than the simple copula εἰμί. Classical usage ranges from “to exist already, to be the beginning” to “to take the initiative, to be the case,” but in Hellenistic and NT contexts it often signifies being in an underlying state or condition. Thus, ὑπῆρχεν (imperfect) should not be reduced to "was" or "were," but rather “already underlay,” indicating existence grounded in a substratum beneath surface appearance.

In an Aonic Möbius framework, ὑπάρχειν marks the hidden fold of being: εἶναι refers to the visible side of the loop, while ὑπάρχειν denotes the underside sustaining it. For example, Phil 2:6 (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων) portrays not a contingent present state but an underlying divine substratum; likewise Acts 2:30 (προφήτης ὑπάρχων) and Luke 16:23 emphasize condition-in-depth rather than simple presence. Theologically or anthropologically, ὑπάρχειν expresses a depth dimension of existence—being that has always already begun from beneath. In the queen metaphor: her ὑπάρχειν in the tower is not mere location but hidden essence, either degenerative if confined or radiant if released.

(cf. LSJ ὑπάρχω)