Hebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2 jim west jwest at Highland.Net
Sat Oct 30 14:52:10 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:2 Hebrews 1:2 At 02:03 PM 10/30/99 +0000, you wrote:>Dear friends,> >Could you help me with EP ESCATOU TWN hHMHRWN TOUTWN? Does it mean “on the >last of these days”? In this case what is meant here? Or “in the end of >these days”? But can the ejective ESCATOS mean “end”? And what are “these >days”? “This age”?Hello. Epi with the genitive means “in”. The phrase thus means “in theselatter days”, “latter” being understood in an eschatological sense of “theolam haba” in distinction to the “olam hazeh” (The coming age- this presentage- respectively).In short, the writer is saying that “in these last days… God has spokennot by prophet or some other means but by his son… etc”.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDjwest at highland.nethttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Hebrews 1:2Hebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2 Dmitriy Reznik dpreznik at usa.net
Sat Oct 30 14:03:32 EDT 1999

 

Subjective and Objective Genitives Hebrews 1:2 Dear friends,Could you help me with EP ESCATOU TWN hHMHRWN TOUTWN? Does it mean “on the last of these days”? In this case what is meant here? Or “in the end of these days”? But can the ejective ESCATOS mean “end”? And what are “these days”? “This age”?Thank you.Dmitriy Reznik

 

Subjective and Objective GenitivesHebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Sat Oct 30 16:43:27 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:2 Subjective an Objective Genitives To: Dmitriy Reznik,<< Could you help me with EP ESCATOU TWN hHMHRWN TOUTWN? >>In the LXX one can find:EP ESCATWN TWN hHMERWN (at Gen 49:1 LXX);EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN (at Num 24:14 LXX);EP ESCATWi TWN hHMERWN (at Deut 4:30 LXX);EP ESCATWN TWN hHMERWN (at Hos 3:5 LXX);EP ESCATWN TWN hHMERWN (at Mic 4:1 LXX);EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN (at Jer 23:20 LXX);EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN & EP ESCATWN TWN hHMERWN (at Dan 4:30 LXX).Note that at times ESCATOS is singular (ESCATOU) and at other times plural (ESCATWN), but without any real difference in sense. The preposition EPI with the genitive, used temporally, means sometime like “in the time of.” Here at Hebrews 1:2, the phrase: EP ESCATOU TWN hHMHRWN TOUTWN could literally be translated as: “at the last of these days.” But such a literal translation probably does not do justice to its real meaning. One might try something more idiomatic, such as: “at these last days.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com”A thought is a tremendous mode of excitement” (Alfred North Whitehead, “Modes of Thought,” 36).

 

Hebrews 1:2Subjective an Objective Genitives

Hebrews 1:2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Oct 30 14:52:34 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:2 Hebrews 1:2 At 1:48 PM -0500 10/30/99, Dmitriy Reznik wrote:>Dear friends,> >Could you help me with EP ESCATOU TWN hHMHRWN TOUTWN? Does it mean “on the>last of these days”? In this case what is meant here? Or “in the end of>these days”? But can the ejective ESCATOS mean “end”? And what are “these>days”? “This age”?I think that here we must understand TWN hHMERWN TOUTWN as a defininggenitive, here almost in apposition to the time indicated in the firstgenitive: “At the end-time, the time consisting of these days.” It turnsout to be the same thing as “In these end-time days” or “In these latterdays” since “latter days” bears an eschatological associations in Englishever since KJV.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Hebrews 1:2Hebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2 roby ellis rellis01 at chartertn.net
Tue Jun 26 17:15:40 EDT 2001

 

Luke 2:2 The text of Luke 2:2 and word order EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWNGrammatically speaking, is there any real indication as to whether “thesedays” refers to the days in which the Hebrew writer lived or whether it isreferring the the times when God spoke to the fathers?Roby EllisChurch of ChristElizabethton, TN

 

Luke 2:2The text of Luke 2:2 and word order

Hebrews 1:2 Wayne Leman Wayne_Leman at SIL.ORG
Tue Jun 26 18:56:09 EDT 2001

 

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Comparing ALLOS and hETEROS > EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWN> > Grammatically speaking, is there any real indication as to whether “these> days” refers to the days in which the Hebrew writer lived or whether it is> referring the the times when God spoke to the fathers?> > Roby EllisRoby, yours is a reasonable question, since there are times when we cannottell for sure whether a Greek phrase syntactically connects to what precedesor what follows. In this case, since the preceding sentence (verse 1)already has its time adverb PALAI near its beginning, it would seem morereasonable to me that the phrase you are wondering about would set adifferent time, namely, the time for the statement of verse 2. This wouldalso result in parallelism of sentence-initial position of the time settingfor both sentences, which would highlight a contrast of two different timeswhich is quite possibly in focus here.Wayne—Wayne LemanBible translation site: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/

 

The text of Luke 2:2 and word orderComparing ALLOS and hETEROS

Hebrews 1:2 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Jun 26 22:28:47 EDT 2001

 

John 4:17-18 Comparing ALLOS and hETEROS Dear Roby,You write:>EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWN>Grammatically speaking, is there any real indication as to whether “these>days” refers to the days in which the Hebrew writer lived or whether it is>referring the the times when God spoke to the fathers?HH: It seems that the contrast is between PALAI and EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWNTOUTWN. This follows from the fact that in the earlier period God spokethrough prophets, while in the latter period He spoke through His Son.Also, formerly He spoke to the fathers, and lately He spoke to “us.” So thecontrast works at several points to contrast one era with another.Yours,Harold HolmyardDallas, TX

 

John 4:17-18Comparing ALLOS and hETEROS

Hebrews 1:2 virgilsalvage1 virgilsalvage1 at msn.com
Wed Jun 27 05:17:23 EDT 2001

 

Colossians 1:16 Mk 16:2 Constituent Order On Tues, 26 June 2001 at 17:15…..Roby Ellis wrote: “EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWNGrammatically speaking, is there any real indication as to whether “thesedays” refers to the days in which the Hebrew writer lived or whether it isreferring the the times when God spoke to the fathers?” Roby, I think the answer concerning the grammatical indication that ” ELALHSENhHMIN EN UIWi” is referring to the days in which the Hebrew writer lived isthat….as has been pointed out; the speaking to the fathers in verse 1happened adverbally PALAI…( lexically…in the past, longago…formerly.)……however, the writer in verse 2, first gives specificclassification to God speaking to us in Son, as being….characterized byAT…what is LAST… THE DAYS….but what locks it in grammatically thatthese days are the ones in which the writer to the Hebrews is living is”TOUTWN.” This is the genitive plural demonstrative pronoun which has thefunction of pointing to something that has just proceded or that is at leastnearby. (It can also refer to next preceding) All of these options refer tosomething close. The demonstrative pronoun also is for distinguishingbetween two different objects or persons. So TOUTWN already hasdistinguished, being a demonstrative pronoun ,….” at …last…the days “from the times and places that were PALAI..past. But, more than that, TOUTWNpointing to something that is nearby….more than that by being the genitivesays that the “at…what is last…the days” is something that is actuallycharacterized by being “these days”….the nearby days. Close to the writerdays. Not past days. The Father having spoken to us IN Son actually has the classification ofbeing for the writer, at what is the last days….(that by the use of thegenitive TOUTWN means) These nearby to him days, not Those somewhere longago days.Virgil NewkirkSalt Lake City, Utah

 

Colossians 1:16Mk 16:2 Constituent Order

Hebrews 1:2 David Thiele thielogian at yahoo.com
Wed May 29 02:19:48 EDT 2002

 

Easy Texts Hebrews 1:2 Hebrews 1:2 reads EP ESXATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWNELALHSEN hHMIN EN hUIW(i).My question is this: Since ESXATOS is an adjectivepresumably qualifying hHMERWN (certainly to judge bythe translations), why is it singular when hHMERWN isplural? To put the question another way, if the usualtranslation (“these last days”) is the correct one isthere any particular significance in the lack ofagreement in number?RegardsDavid ThielePacific Adventist UniversityPapua New Guinea__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Everything you’ll ever need on one web pagefrom News and Sport to Email and Music Chartshttp://uk.my.yahoo.com

 

Easy TextsHebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2 Steve Drukas plunix at subdimension.com
Wed May 29 04:22:39 EDT 2002

 

Hebrews 1:2 Discourse Analysis – Authors? I don’t see why the adjective here would be singular when it applies to a plural noun. The only possible answer I can think of is that this is an incorrect reading of the text. The Nestle-Aland NT contains the text you quoted, but the Textus Receptus contains ESCATWN (plural), not ESCATOU (singular).On Wednesday 29 May 2002 01:19 am, David Thiele wrote:> Hebrews 1:2 reads EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWN> ELALHSEN hHMIN EN hUIW(i).> > My question is this: Since ESCATOS is an adjective> presumably qualifying hHMERWN (certainly to judge by> the translations), why is it singular when hHMERWN is> plural?> > To put the question another way, if the usual> translation (“these last days”) is the correct one is> there any particular significance in the lack of> agreement in number?[Steve Drukas. Moderator’s note: new list-members please take notethat BG List protocol requires that all messages sent to the list be followed by a full-name personal signature.]

 

Hebrews 1:2Discourse Analysis – Authors?

Hebrews 1:2 Blahoslav Cicel Blahoslav.Cicel at cb.cz
Wed May 29 04:00:09 EDT 2002

 

Hebrews 1:2 Hebrews 1:2 Hello David,First: EP ESCATOU is in W-H and UBS, TR has EP ESCATWN. Thus no lack ofagreement in number.Second: if I am correct ESCATOU is Gen.Sing.Masc. (Fem. should be ESCATHS).So there is lack not only in number, but in gender either. My suggestion isto take it as:At the final (time), i.e. in these days, he spoke in…Blahopastor in the North of Czecho—–Original Message—–From: David Thiele [mailto:thielogian at yahoo.com]Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 8:20 AMTo: Biblical GreekSubject: [] Hebrews 1:2Hebrews 1:2 reads EP ESXATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWNELALHSEN hHMIN EN hUIW(i).My question is this: Since ESXATOS is an adjectivepresumably qualifying hHMERWN (certainly to judge bythe translations), why is it singular when hHMERWN isplural?To put the question another way, if the usualtranslation (“these last days”) is the correct one isthere any particular significance in the lack ofagreement in number?RegardsDavid ThielePacific Adventist UniversityPapua New Guinea__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Everything you’ll ever need on one web pagefrom News and Sport to Email and Music Chartshttp://uk.my.yahoo.com— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: [Blahoslav.Cicel at cb.cz]To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

Hebrews 1:2Hebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 29 06:19:05 EDT 2002

 

LXX-induced errors Hebrews 1:2 At 7:19 AM +0100 5/29/02, David Thiele wrote:>Hebrews 1:2 reads EP ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWN>ELALHSEN hHMIN EN hUIW(i).> >My question is this: Since ESCATOS is an adjective>presumably qualifying hHMERWN (certainly to judge by>the translations), why is it singular when hHMERWN is>plural?> >To put the question another way, if the usual>translation (“these last days”) is the correct one is>there any particular significance in the lack of>agreement in number?While ESCATOS is indeed an adjective which, when modifying a noun, shouldbe in agreement with it in number, gender, and case, nevertheless in thepresent instance it is used substantivally as a neuter noun in the sense of”last/ultimate part.” It probably is used in deliberate imitation of theLXX phrase which translates the Hebrew phrase b’acharit hayammim, whereacharit is a feminine noun meaning “last part.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

LXX-induced errorsHebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2 dan_rach dan_rach at ntlworld.com
Wed May 29 06:37:00 EDT 2002

 

Hebrews 1:2 Aspect and nesting (was: Perfective, Imperfective, and Iterative) Is not ESCATOU simply the genitive of the noun TO ESCATON. Compare, Acts 1:8and 13:47 (the latter quoting Isa.), referring to the ESCATOU THS GHS (noteGH is also fem.), or Mk 12:22 ESCATON PANTWN (here it is adverbial – ‘at theend of it all’). I don’t feel I have any grammatical problem with the NAtext as it stands. TO ESCATON is a fairly common substantive on its own inHerodotus and other classical writings.However, my NA27 gives the textual witness to ESCATWN asY,629,1505,pauci,a,b,d,t. There is no reference to Majority Text, yet the TRclearly does have ESCATWN. Is this an oversight by NA?Dan King> Hebrews 1:2 reads EP ESXATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWN> ELALHSEN hHMIN EN hUIW(i).> > My question is this: Since ESXATOS is an adjective> presumably qualifying hHMERWN (certainly to judge by> the translations), why is it singular when hHMERWN is> plural?> > To put the question another way, if the usual> translation (“these last days”) is the correct one is> there any particular significance in the lack of> agreement in number?> > Regards> > David Thiele> Pacific Adventist University> Papua New Guinea>

 

Hebrews 1:2Aspect and nesting (was: Perfective, Imperfective, and Iterative)

Hebrews 1:2 Matthew Farrell mwfarrell at mindex.com
Wed May 29 10:35:09 EDT 2002

 

Aspect and nesting (was: Perfective, Imperfective, and Iterative) LXX-induced errors Since ESXATOS, though an adjective, can function as a substantive (i.e., anoun), it can stand independent and therefore does not need to agree ingender or number to another noun in the phrase. It may be best totranslate this phrase as “at the last of these days”/”at the end of thesedays.”

 

Aspect and nesting (was: Perfective, Imperfective, and Iterative)LXX-induced errors

[] Hebrews 1:2 Jesus Arocho jesus_arocho at comcast.net
Sun Jul 11 15:57:12 EDT 2004

 

[] Mark 16:14, W [] Hebrews 1:2 Why is the word AIWNAS translated as world as opporsed to ages?

 

[] Mark 16:14, W[] Hebrews 1:2

[] Hebrews 1:2 Jesus Arocho jesus_arocho at comcast.net
Sun Jul 11 16:10:01 EDT 2004

 

[] Hebrews 1:2 [] Hebrews 1:2 Second question:Why is “EN UIW” translated as “His Son” although UIW is in the dative case?

 

[] Hebrews 1:2[] Hebrews 1:2

[] Hebrews 1:2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 11 17:24:54 EDT 2004

 

[] Hebrews 1:2 [] Hebrews 1:2 At 3:57 PM -0400 7/11/04, Jesus Arocho wrote:>Why is the word AIWNAS translated as world as opporsed to ages?Because the word means something like “time-space frame” — world and thetime span for which it is intended to endure. In the context of this verse,the reference is surely not merely to the creation of spans of time but tothe created world.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Hebrews 1:2[] Hebrews 1:2

[] Hebrews 1:2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 11 17:34:59 EDT 2004

 

[] Hebrews 1:2 [] re. I Cor 15,22 At 4:10 PM -0400 7/11/04, Jesus Arocho wrote:>Second question:> >Why is “EN UIW” translated as “His Son” although UIW is in the dative case?You appear to be asking questions based upon a translation, perhaps aninterlinear text, rather than upon a Greek text which you have parsed andunderstood the construction of directly. The phrase EN hUIWi is apreposition used with an instrumental dative–that means that EN must bearthe sense “by means of” or “through the instrumentality of.” hUIWi isindeed dative but as I’ve noted above, it’s not a dative of indirect objectand it’s not a locative dative; in an English translation the FUNCTION ofthe case and preposition are normally conveyed by a preposition or aprepositional phrase such as “by means of” or “through the instrumentalityof”; hUIWi apart from its case working with EN bears the sense “a son”;that is to say, “His” is not explicitly indicated in the Greek at all;translators supply it because it seems appropriate–but you’ll probablyfind that some translations do have it simply as “by means of a son.” Sofor instance NET conveys verse 2 thus: ” … in these last days he hasspoken to us in a son …” I’d prefer “by means of a son” myself, butperhaps most readers might find “in a son” meaningful enough here.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Hebrews 1:2[] re. I Cor 15,22

[] Hebrews 1:2 EgwEimi at aol.com EgwEimi at aol.com
Sun Jul 11 19:45:08 EDT 2004

 

[] re. I Cor 15,22 — CORRECTION [] Hebrews 1:2 My own rendering doesn’t read either of those things. It has, “At the last of these days, he has spoken to us by a son,whom he placed to be Heir of All Things,on account of whom he made the ages ….”I assume there are quite a few other translations that read similarly, since (as Carl indicated) the meaning isn’t really in dispute here. Comparing a few translations, I see this: “…in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, ….” (NAB) “…but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” (RSV)The NRSV has “worlds” instead of “world” but is similar in other ways. “…but in our time, the final days, he has spoken to us in the person of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the ages.” (NJB) So, it appears that EN hUIW is rendered as “a son” or “his son” by the average translation. Those who render more literally as “a son” are probably noticing the comparison between EN TOIS PROFHTAIS and EN hUIW. Carl has already noted that AIWNAS can be understood more than one way. The most literal again would be “ages,” but the expression BASILEOS TWN AIWNWN (as, for example, in 1T 1:17) is often rendered “King of the Universe” rather than “King of the Ages.” Clearly, some translators have chosen “ages”, while others have selected the other rendering (“world,” “worlds,” or “universe”). Frank Frank DanielsEgwEimi at aol.com

 

[] re. I Cor 15,22 — CORRECTION[] Hebrews 1:2

[] Hebrews 1:2 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Jul 11 20:11:36 EDT 2004

 

[] Hebrews 1:2 [] Commands vs statements On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:45 PM, EgwEimi at aol.com wrote:> My own rendering doesn’t read either of those things.> > It has,> > “At the last of these days, he has spoken to us by a son,> whom he placed to be Heir of All Things,> on account of whom he made the ages ….”Frank, DIA with the genitive is not causal (on account of) but instrumental (through or by). For the causal sense DIA with the accusative would have been used.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Hebrews 1:2[] Commands vs statements
[] Hebrews 1:2 EgwEimi at aol.com EgwEimi at aol.com
Mon Jul 12 11:35:43 EDT 2004

 

[] KALOS update available [] RE: Roush [Rouse] A Greek Boy at Home Steven wrote: “Frank, DIA with the genitive is not causal (on account of) but instrumental (through or by). For the causal sense DIA with the accusative would have been used.” Yes, and I mean the same as “through,” here.But it’s like “through” in the sense of a path through one locale to a destination.This is hard to express in English, so one approximates; as, “with him in mind.”So, I have rendered it as I have. The rationale requires the commentary. Incidentally, I have often wondered why in these electronic days translators do not keep websites wherein they answer questions about the plan and details of their translations.If such sites do exist, there are not many of them. Frank Frank DanielsEgwEimi at aol.com

 

[] KALOS update available[] RE: Roush [Rouse] A Greek Boy at Home

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

11 thoughts on “Hebrews 1:2

  1. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    NOW here is the Greek behind the falling of the worldS

    You and 2 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Pentecostal Theology. Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping In the book of Hebrews, the Lord Jesus Christ is said to be the maker of the “worlds” (plural):

    “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”
    (Heb. 1:2 KJV)

    “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
    (Heb. 11:3 KJV)

    What worldS or ageS if not the pre-adamic? What else could there be? Ricky Grimsley Terry Wiles Joe Absher

Cancel reply

Leave a Reply to Troy Day

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.