Hebrews 11:28

Phil 1:28 hHTIS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jan 9 03:31:37 EST 2002

 

Question about Manuscripts digest: January 08, 2002 > >> >Phil 1:27-18 hOTI STHKETE EN hENI PNEUMATI, MIAi YUCHi SUNAQLOUNTES THi> >PISTEI TOU EUAGGELIOU KAI MH PTUROMENOI EN MHDENI hUPO TWN ANTIKEIMENWN,> >hHTIS ESTIN AUTOIS ENDEIXIS APWLEIAS> >> >Does hHTIS refer back to the feminine PISTIS or can it possibly refer> >forward to ENDEIXIS?Carl responded:> While upon first overview the idea that hHTIS refers back to> PISTEI appears> conceivable, the objection arise immediately to the very idea that the> faith or faithfulness of one person or group should itself be> demonstrative> of another person’s or group’s perdition–I suppose there may be some to> whom such a notion doesn’t seem objectionable, but I find it impossible to> take seriously.I am afraid you have discounted this possibility too quickly by assumingthat PISTIS here has the sense of faith or faithfulness, which I don’t thinkit has. It is rather sense number 3 in BAGD “That which is believed, bodyof faith or belief, doctrine” or in Louw and Nida sense number 5:31.104 the content of what Christians believe – ‘the faith, beliefs,doctrine.’This is supported by the only other use of SUNAQLEW in the GNT – Phil 4:3 -where it is also a matter of fighting together or contending for the gospel.In 1:28 it is PISTIS TOU EUAGGELIOU, but this refers to the doctrine of thegospel or content of the gospel and is not significantly different from “thegospel” alone in 4:3. Both of these places by using the word EUAGGELIONimply the activity of proclaiming the doctrine contained in the gospel.Concerning the idea that the content of the gospel should be a pointer tothe opponents – AUTOIS ENDEIXIS – that those who do not obey it are lost andthose who obey it are saved, I see no problem. In fact, this is a keyelement of the Christian doctrine as it is proclaimed by Paul. And he addsin 1:28 KAI TOUTO hUPO QEOU. That the proclamation of the gospel shows thatthe opponents are destined for destruction while the believers in Philippiare destined for salvation is not just Paul’s idea, but the content of thegospel that comes from God.Carl continued:> I think that hHTIS must rather, as Iver suggests in his> question, refer forward to ENDEIXIS. In affirming that, however, I think> we’d have to see an elliptical construction here, such that hHTIS is> attracted into or takes its number, gender and case from ENDEIXIS, its> predicate noun, but that it represents what grammatically ought rather to> be a hO TI (the neuter indefinite pronoun, not the conjunction)> which would have as its antecedent MH PTUROMENOI EN MHDENI hUPO TWNANTIKEIMENWN, “not> letting yourselves be tripped up in any way by your opponents.” That might> still make it look like the steadfastness (PISTIS) of the Philippians is> demonstrative of the perdition of their opponents, but it seems to me that> it’s the combination implicit in the present participles MH PTUROMENOI and> ANTIKEIMENWN: the ongoing efforts of the opponents in the face of the> ongoing persistence of the Philippians in steadfastness.I suggested that hHTIS might possibly refer forward to ENDEIXIS because Ihad seen that claim by some people. But having read your explanation itseems even more unlikely to me that this is possible. It just does not fitwith how hOSTIS is used in the GNT. It is the kind if desperate conjecturethat ought to be the last resort when everything more reasonable fails.The two relevant senses of hOSTIS are number 2 and 3 in BAGD.:2b. “to emphasize a characteristic quality, by which a preceding statementis to be confirmed”3. “Quite oft. hOSTIS takes the place of the simple rel. this occurs rarelyin class. usage (but s. Hdt. 4, 8, 1 and oft.; Thu. 6, 3, 1; Demosth. 38, 6;17; Kühner—G. II 399f), but much more freq. in later Gk.”These two are often difficult to differentiate as Bauer himself admits undersection 2b: “Yet many of the passages already mentioned may be classed underthe following head (3), and some that are classed there may fit better inthis one (2).”If we set aside the somewhat idiomatic use of the genitive form in hEWShOTOU which occurs five times in the NT, hOSTIS only occurs in thenominative in the GNT and never in the singular neuter. (The few potentialcases of a neuter indefinite rel. hO TI are highly disputed and can betterbe explained as hOTI). The plural neuter hATINA occurs 5 times out of the129 nominative instances of hOSTIS.As far as I can tell hOSTIS always refers back to a preceding noun of thesame gender, and it may skip a number of intervening words, e.g. in Luk 8:437 words, Rom 16:7 6 words and Heb 10:8 11 words. Therefore, I see no problemin having hHTIS refer back to THi PISTEI TOU EUAGGELIOU and thereby skippingover a parenthetical comment of 6 words.The reason I raised the issue is that I am translating Philippians at themoment, and I seem to disagree with most English translations andcommentators on 1:28. So I would like to be proved wrong if I am wrong, inorder to produce a faithful translation.Thanks,Iver Larsen

 

Question about Manuscripts digest: January 08, 2002

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Webb webb at selftest.net
Mon Jun 4 12:43:27 EDT 2007

 

[] Brent Hudson uploading Funk images [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS (Heb.11:28). Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to “inaugurationof a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also findperfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in the GNT.Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here? Webb Mealy

 

[] Brent Hudson uploading Funk images[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 4 12:50:29 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 See BDAG s.v. POIEW 2f for comparable usages. georgegfsomsel Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: Webb <webb at selftest.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, June 4, 2007 12:43:27 PMSubject: [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS (Heb.11:28).Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to “inaugurationof a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also findperfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in the GNT.Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here?Webb Mealy— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ ____________________________________________________________________________________Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Webb webb at selftest.net
Mon Jun 4 12:55:38 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Dear George, I’m comfortable with that part-about POIEW being used for celebratingrituals and holding banquets and the like. It’s the weight of the perfecttense that I’m trying to assess. Does it mean, essentially, that Moses”inaugurated” this feast? Webb _____ From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:50 AMTo: Webb; Subject: Re: [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 See BDAG s.v. POIEW 2f for comparable usages. georgegfsomsel Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________ —– Original Message —-From: Webb <webb at selftest.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, June 4, 2007 12:43:27 PMSubject: [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS (Heb.11:28).Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to “inaugurationof a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also findperfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in the GNT.Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here?Webb Mealy— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ _____ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV’s Comedy<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47093/*http:/tv.yahoo.com/collections/222> withan Edge to see what’s on, when.

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jun 4 13:34:35 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] ANTI in Heb. 12:2 = local metaphor? On Jun 4, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Webb wrote:> Dear George,> > > > I’m comfortable with that part-about POIEW being used for celebrating> rituals and holding banquets and the like. It’s the weight of the > perfect> tense that I’m trying to assess. Does it mean, essentially, that Moses> “inaugurated” this feast?I’m inclined to think that this is an instance of perfect that is essentiallyidentical in usage with an aorist. I don’t think there’s any suggestion ofestablishment of the Passover — in all probability it was a previously-existing ritual given a fresh meaning in the context of the exodusexperience. NET gives “he kept the Passover” — and I think that’s right:he “performed the rite.”> > _____> > From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:50 AM> To: Webb; > Subject: Re: [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28> > > > See BDAG s.v. POIEW 2f for comparable usages.> > > george> gfsomsel> > > > Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > —– Original Message —-> From: Webb <webb at selftest.net>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, June 4, 2007 12:43:27 PM> Subject: [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28> > PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS > (Heb.> 11:28).> > > > Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to > “inauguration> of a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also > find> perfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in > the GNT.> Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here?> > > > Webb Mealy> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > > _____> > Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV’s Comedy> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47093/*http:/tv.yahoo.com/collections/ > 222> with> an Edge to see what’s on, when.> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] ANTI in Heb. 12:2 = local metaphor?

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Jun 4 17:20:26 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 —– Original Message —– > PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS (Heb.> 11:28).> > Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to “inauguration> of a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also find> perfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in the GNT.> Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here?> > Webb MealyIn my opinion, the description of the perfect as an act with enduring results is somewhat misleading. I prefer to think of the perfect as a marked “perfective” in general linguistic terms compared to the unmarked aorist. So I agree that the “still observed” is an over-interpretation.Moses is the one who “has made/created/instituted” the Passover. There was no Passover celebration before Moses obeyed God by asking the Israelites to slaughter sheep and smear the blood on the doorposts. Exo 12,21 is the first time the word (and event) occurs, and Moses was the one introducing it. It took faith to do that, because it was basically “irrational”, and this act of faith is the point made in Hebrews 11:28.I think the perfect is essentially like the aorist, but with a greater emphasis on the completedness of the action.Iver Larsen

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Jun 4 16:29:18 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 On Jun 4, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Webb wrote:> PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS > (Heb.> 11:28).> > > > Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to > “inauguration> of a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also > find> perfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in > the GNT.> Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here?It is possible that Z-G is over-interpreting the perfect. Westcott (Ep.Hebrews p.177) gives a list of perfects in Hebrews which he considered significant and PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 is on the list. Ellingworth (Hebrews NIGTC) “… the perfect in contrast to the aorists in vv. 27 and 29, marks the establishment of the passover as a permanent institution …” C.Koester (Heb.AB) “he kept the passover” with no comment on tense/aspect.In narrative the relative levels of markedness for verb tense/aspect looks something like:aorist [perfective] — imperfect/present [imperfective] — perfect [stative]I searched the LXX for non-aorist forms of POEIW within 10 words of PASCA. There were NO perfects, one present and several futures. The aorist was found nearly twice as often as all other forms combined. This makes sense if the aorist is the unmarked tense/aspect.Porter (Idioms NTG, p23) breaks down narrative prominence into three layers aorist [perfective, background], imperfect/present [imperfective, foreground], perfect [stative, front-ground]. The perfect is the most marked. I think this is what Ellingworth is driving at with his “the perfect in contrast to the aorists in vv. 27 and 29” statement. The perfect stands out against a background of aorists. That doesn’t necessarily mean that PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 “marks the establishment of the passover as a permanent institution …”.What is required is a study of the perfect in Hebrews which means looking at about 40 finite verbs, Westcott included in his list only half that number. Westcott claims that the “full force” of the perfect is felt in “every case.” I suspect once could come up with some exceptions, however I am inclined to agree with Westcott and Ellingworth that PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 is marked relative to the aorist.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jun 4 17:34:55 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 On Jun 4, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> > On Jun 4, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Webb wrote:> >> PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS>> (Heb.>> 11:28).>> >> >> >> Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to>> “inauguration>> of a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also>> find>> perfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in>> the GNT.>> Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here?> > It is possible that Z-G is over-interpreting the perfect. Westcott> (Ep.Hebrews p.177) gives a list of perfects in Hebrews which he> considered significant and PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 is on the list.> Ellingworth (Hebrews NIGTC) “… the perfect in contrast to the> aorists in vv. 27 and 29, marks the establishment of the passover as> a permanent institution …” C.Koester (Heb.AB) “he kept the> passover” with no comment on tense/aspect.> > In narrative the relative levels of markedness for verb tense/aspect> looks something like:> > aorist [perfective] — imperfect/present [imperfective] — perfect> [stative]> > I searched the LXX for non-aorist forms of POEIW within 10 words of> PASCA. There were NO perfects, one present and several futures. The> aorist was found nearly twice as often as all other forms combined.> This makes sense if the aorist is the unmarked tense/aspect.> > Porter (Idioms NTG, p23) breaks down narrative prominence into three> layers aorist [perfective, background], imperfect/present> [imperfective, foreground], perfect [stative, front-ground]. The> perfect is the most marked. I think this is what Ellingworth is> driving at with his “the perfect in contrast to the aorists in vv. 27> and 29″ statement. The perfect stands out against a background of> aorists. That doesn’t necessarily mean that PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 “marks> the establishment of the passover as a permanent institution …”.> > What is required is a study of the perfect in Hebrews which means> looking at about 40 finite verbs, Westcott included in his list only> half that number. Westcott claims that the “full force” of the> perfect is felt in “every case.” I suspect once could come up with> some exceptions, however I am inclined to agree with Westcott and> Ellingworth that PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 is marked relative to the aorist.I’m trying to figure out what this means in terms of what it’s comparable to within my realm of linguistic experience. it would appear to mean that, whereas the aorist is an unmarked perfective and EPOIHSEN would be a “passé indéfini” in French — “il a fait,” the perfect is a marked perfective and PEPOIHKEN would be a “passé défini” in French — “il fit.” I think that makes some sense, but I think that, by and large, distinctions in usage between aorist and perfect indicative in the Koine are obsolescent; it may well be that the author of Hebrews is more observant of traditional standard usage.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 5 03:23:40 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> What is required is a study of the perfect in Hebrews which means> looking at about 40 finite verbs, Westcott included in his list only> half that number. Westcott claims that the “full force” of the> perfect is felt in “every case.” I suspect once could come up with> some exceptions, however I am inclined to agree with Westcott and> Ellingworth that PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 is marked relative to the aorist.Take a look at the UPOTASSW in Heb 2:8HEB. 2:8 PANTA hUPETAXAS hUPOKATW TWN PODWN AUTOU. EN TWi GAR hUPOTAXAI [AUTWi] TA PANTA OUDEN AFHKEN AUTWi ANUPOTAKTON. NUN DE OUPW hORWMEN AUTWi TA PANTA hUPOTETAGMENA:Heb. 2:8 πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ἐν τῷ γὰρ ὑποτάξαι [αὐτῷ] τὰ πάντα οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. Νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα·The sequence hUPETAXAS … hUPOTAXAI … hUPOTETAGMENA nicely illustrates the contrast between perfective and stative.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 5 05:47:21 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 On Jun 5, 2007, at 3:23 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> > On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> >> What is required is a study of the perfect in Hebrews which means>> looking at about 40 finite verbs, Westcott included in his list only>> half that number. Westcott claims that the “full force” of the>> perfect is felt in “every case.” I suspect once could come up with>> some exceptions, however I am inclined to agree with Westcott and>> Ellingworth that PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 is marked relative to the aorist.> > Take a look at the UPOTASSW in Heb 2:8> > HEB. 2:8 PANTA hUPETAXAS hUPOKATW TWN PODWN AUTOU. EN TWi GAR> hUPOTAXAI [AUTWi] TA PANTA OUDEN AFHKEN AUTWi ANUPOTAKTON. NUN DE> OUPW hORWMEN AUTWi TA PANTA hUPOTETAGMENA:> > Heb. 2:8 πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν> ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ἐν τῷ γὰρ ὑποτάξαι> [αὐτῷ] τὰ πάντα οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν> αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. Νῦν δὲ οὔπω> ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα > ὑποτεταγμένα·> > The sequence hUPETAXAS … hUPOTAXAI … hUPOTETAGMENA nicely> illustrates the contrast between perfective and stative.I can readily understand this progression and acknowledge readily that hUPOTETAGMENA is stative; what I am less confident about is the proposition that PEPOIHKEN in Heb 11:28 is stative with a sense something like “is the creator/performer of the Passover.” I’m still not convinced that EPOIHSEN would have a significantly different meaning from PEPOIHKEN in Heb 11:28 PISTEI PEPOIHKEN TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS, hINA MH hO OLOQREUWN TA PRWTOTOKA QIGHi AUTWN. If there IS a difference, it doesn’t seem to me one that can be represented in English, although I suggested that the French “il fit” would be significantly different from “il a fait.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jun 5 07:08:14 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 —– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>> > On Jun 4, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Webb wrote:> >> PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS>> (Heb.>> 11:28).>> >> >> >> Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to>> “inauguration>> of a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also>> find>> perfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in>> the GNT.>> Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here?> > It is possible that Z-G is over-interpreting the perfect. Westcott> (Ep.Hebrews p.177) gives a list of perfects in Hebrews which he> considered significant and PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 is on the list.> Ellingworth (Hebrews NIGTC) “… the perfect in contrast to the> aorists in vv. 27 and 29, marks the establishment of the passover as> a permanent institution …” C.Koester (Heb.AB) “he kept the> passover” with no comment on tense/aspect.Well, I am afraid I disagree somewhat with both Koester and Ellingworth. The word POIEW here does not mean “keep”, but “create/institute”. I don’t think the perfect indicates the passover as a permanent institution, but rather that it was definitely and unarguably instituted by Moses.> In narrative the relative levels of markedness for verb tense/aspect> looks something like:> > aorist [perfective] — imperfect/present [imperfective] — perfect> [stative]For some verbs the semantic content will allow the perfect to indicate a stative aspect, but I don’t think that applies to POIEW. There are 18 perfect forms of this verb in the NT, and none of them can reasonably be described as stative. However, the perfect does seem to have a ring of finality about it. It might be called an “emphatic past”. That this event has happened cannot be argued against.For instance, Paul says in 2 Cor 11:25 that he has spent a night and day in the deep (ocean):NUCQHMERON EN TWi BUQWi PEPOIHKA.Paul is not in a stative position in the deep, nor is the “day and night” in any way stative. He is emphasizing that he actually did spend a day and night in the deep waters. One might say that he is in the position of having had this experience, but IMO that is stretching the idea of “stative” beyond its normal usage.Iver Larsen

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 5 14:26:59 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> For some verbs the semantic content will allow the perfect to > indicate a stative aspect, but I don’t> think that applies to POIEW. There are 18 perfect forms of this > verb in the NT, and none of them can> reasonably be described as stative. However, the perfect does seem > to have a ring of finality about> it. It might be called an “emphatic past”. That this event has > happened cannot be argued against.> > For instance, Paul says in 2 Cor 11:25 that he has spent a night > and day in the deep (ocean):> NUCQHMERON EN TWi BUQWi PEPOIHKA.> > Paul is not in a stative position in the deep, nor is the “day and > night” in any way stative. He is> emphasizing that he actually did spend a day and night in the deep > waters. One might say that he is> in the position of having had this experience, but IMO that is > stretching the idea of “stative”> beyond its normal usage.Iver,I agree with you about 2Cor 11:25.I am not going argue over the stative in PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28. I was just reporting on Ellingworth, not agreeing with him. Porter’s framework perfective-imperfective-stative is just a general way of dealing with aspect, exceptions abound (as always).Zerwick(Roma 1963, #285-291) claims the perfect indicates “not the past action but the present <<state of affairs>> resulting from the past action.” I suspect (??) this is the sense in which Porter (Idioms 2nd ed. p.23ff) is using the word stative. Zerwick is aware of those who read the perfect in the GNT in light of Modern Greek and he admits that there are places in the GNT where the perfect **appears** to be used like the aorist but he claims these can be explained without giving up the distinctive semantics of the perfect (see Zerwick #289, BDF #343).In light of this, lets take a look at PEPOIHKEN in 1Jn 5:101JOHN 5:10 hO PISTEUWN EIS TON hUION TOU QEOU ECEI THN MARTURIAN EN hEAUTWi, hO MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON, hOTI OU PEPISTEUKEN EIS THN MARTURIAN hHN MEMARTURHKEN hO QEOS PERI TOU hUIOU AUTOUIt seems to me that YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON could be understood as describing a state of affairs resulting from a past action without inflicting irreparable damage on the “stative” semantic category. I would read this as one state of affairs MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi (presented aspectually as an imperfective) resulting in a second state of affairs YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON (presented aspectually as a stative). It seems to me that John is presenting MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi and YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON not as events but as states. However, it isn’t very difficult to see how this statement might be inverted.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Webb webb at selftest.net
Tue Jun 5 14:27:28 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 The notion that the Passover pre-dated Moses in some form may or may not betrue as a historical proposition, but it is a red herring for ourdiscussion. There is no real doubt that the author of Hebrews will haveregarded Moses as the prophetic inaugurator of that ongoing ritual. Thatpresumption, together with his choice of the perfect tense here and the factthat the perfects in Hebrews uniformly carry their full force, issuggestive.On the other hand, Iver’s citation of 2 Cor 11:25 (NUCQHMERON EN TWi BUQWiPEPOIHKA) is also suggestive to me, in a different direction than what heproposes. Consider the relative weights of the following pair of sentences:I spent a night and a day in the water. I’ve spent a night and a day in the water.There is a way in which the second of these–in English–seems to make apermanent claim based on the one experience. Paul asserts that he is aperson who “has” that experience to brag about. The first says I did suchand such in the past; the second says, as I stand here now, I can claim thatexperience. I suspect that this sort of nuance may be behind Paul’s choiceof the perfect. Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver LarsenSent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 4:08 AMTo: Subject: Re: [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28—– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>> > On Jun 4, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Webb wrote:> >> PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS>> (Heb.>> 11:28).>> >> >> >> Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to>> “inauguration>> of a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also>> find>> perfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in>> the GNT.>> Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here?> > It is possible that Z-G is over-interpreting the perfect. Westcott> (Ep.Hebrews p.177) gives a list of perfects in Hebrews which he> considered significant and PEPOIHKEN in 11:28 is on the list.> Ellingworth (Hebrews NIGTC) “… the perfect in contrast to the> aorists in vv. 27 and 29, marks the establishment of the passover as> a permanent institution …” C.Koester (Heb.AB) “he kept the> passover” with no comment on tense/aspect.Well, I am afraid I disagree somewhat with both Koester and Ellingworth. Theword POIEW here does not mean “keep”, but “create/institute”. I don’t think the perfect indicatesthe passover as a permanent institution, but rather that it was definitely and unarguablyinstituted by Moses.> In narrative the relative levels of markedness for verb tense/aspect> looks something like:> > aorist [perfective] — imperfect/present [imperfective] — perfect> [stative]For some verbs the semantic content will allow the perfect to indicate astative aspect, but I don’t think that applies to POIEW. There are 18 perfect forms of this verb in theNT, and none of them can reasonably be described as stative. However, the perfect does seem to have aring of finality about it. It might be called an “emphatic past”. That this event has happenedcannot be argued against.For instance, Paul says in 2 Cor 11:25 that he has spent a night and day inthe deep (ocean):NUCQHMERON EN TWi BUQWi PEPOIHKA.Paul is not in a stative position in the deep, nor is the “day and night” inany way stative. He is emphasizing that he actually did spend a day and night in the deep waters.One might say that he is in the position of having had this experience, but IMO that is stretchingthe idea of “stative” beyond its normal usage.Iver Larsen — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 5 14:39:04 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 On Jun 5, 2007, at 2:47 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> I can readily understand this progression and acknowledge readily > that hUPOTETAGMENA is stative; what I am less confident about is > the proposition that PEPOIHKEN in Heb 11:28 is stative with a sense > something like “is the creator/performer of the Passover.”Carl,I have already responded to Iver’s objection. I am not sure if it covers your objection. It seems that we are getting embroiled in a dispute about the meaning of “stative” and how it would be represented in English. I haven’t even attempted to translate it but I can assure you it would not be “is the creator/performer of the Passover”.Thank you,Elizabeth Kline

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 5 17:24:21 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 On Jun 5, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Webb wrote:> and the fact> that the perfects in Hebrews uniformly carry their full force…I think this is a little overstated. Wescott said something similar, but only gave less than half of the perfects in Hebrews as citations.Moulton (Proleg. pps.142-144) discusses the interplay of semantics between the aorist and perfect in the NT period. He claims that isolated examples of perfects apparently functioning semantically as aorists can be found earlier than the NT but the general drift was for the aorist to take over the semantic territory of the perfect which he dates centuries after the NT was written.Furthermore Moulton under “Aoristic Perfect in the NT?” lists Hebrews 7:13. 9:18, 11:17, and 11:28 as examples cited by others to illustrate the “Aoristic Perfect”. He disagrees: “Nor will it do to cite the perfects in Heb 11:17 al where the use of this tense to describe what ‘stands written’ in Scripture is a marked feature of the author’s style.”Elizabeth Kline

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jun 6 06:16:03 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 —– Original Message —– > > On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> >> For some verbs the semantic content will allow the perfect to>> indicate a stative aspect, but I don’t>> think that applies to POIEW. There are 18 perfect forms of this>> verb in the NT, and none of them can>> reasonably be described as stative. However, the perfect does seem>> to have a ring of finality about>> it. It might be called an “emphatic past”. That this event has>> happened cannot be argued against.>> >> For instance, Paul says in 2 Cor 11:25 that he has spent a night>> and day in the deep (ocean):>> NUCQHMERON EN TWi BUQWi PEPOIHKA.>> >> Paul is not in a stative position in the deep, nor is the “day and>> night” in any way stative. He is>> emphasizing that he actually did spend a day and night in the deep>> waters. One might say that he is>> in the position of having had this experience, but IMO that is>> stretching the idea of “stative”>> beyond its normal usage.> [E. Kline:]> Iver,> > I agree with you about 2Cor 11:25.> > I am not going argue over the stative in PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28. I> was just reporting on Ellingworth, not agreeing with him. Porter’s> framework perfective-imperfective-stative is just a general way of> dealing with aspect, exceptions abound (as always).> > Zerwick(Roma 1963, #285-291) claims the perfect indicates “not the> past action but the present <<state of affairs>> resulting from the> past action.” I suspect (??) this is the sense in which Porter> (Idioms 2nd ed. p.23ff) is using the word stative. Zerwick is aware> of those who read the perfect in the GNT in light of Modern Greek and> he admits that there are places in the GNT where the perfect> **appears** to be used like the aorist but he claims these can be> explained without giving up the distinctive semantics of the perfect> (see Zerwick #289, BDF #343).> > In light of this, lets take a look at PEPOIHKEN in 1Jn 5:10> > 1JOHN 5:10 hO PISTEUWN EIS TON hUION TOU QEOU ECEI THN MARTURIAN EN> hEAUTWi, hO MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON, hOTI OU> PEPISTEUKEN EIS THN MARTURIAN hHN MEMARTURHKEN hO QEOS PERI TOU hUIOU> AUTOU> > It seems to me that YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON could be understood as> describing a state of affairs resulting from a past action without> inflicting irreparable damage on the “stative” semantic category. I> would read this as one state of affairs MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi> (presented aspectually as an imperfective) resulting in a second> state of affairs YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON (presented aspectually as a> stative). It seems to me that John is presenting MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi> and YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON not as events but as states. However, it> isn’t very difficult to see how this statement might be inverted.> A verb like PISTEUW readily lends itself to a stative sense, and when we deal with participles, they are normally descriptive and stative. So I accept that hO PISTEUWN describes a person in a on-going state of believing just like hO MH PISTEUWN describes someone who does not believe (God and his the testimony). Similarly OU PEPISTEUKEN seems to indicate a person who is in the state of not having believed, because of the event of unbelief/rejection in the past. However, I still prefer to see PEPOIHKEN and MEMARTURHKEN as emphatic pasts. I don’t think there is much disagreement, just a slightly different focus. It is because it is a definite and completed event in the past, a fait accompli, that it has implications for the present state. We actually translated the perfect PEPOIHKEN here in Danish with a present tense construction (they think/believe that God is lying), because it would not be clear or natural to say in my language that “he has made God a liar”.As Webb has pointed out (and this is generally accepted, I believe) the better translation of a perfect form into English is often by using the auxiliary “have”. However, I would also translate many aorists the same way, so for me it is more a matter of context and pragmatics than strict grammatical rules. And sometimes a perfect is best translated by a present form.Iver Larsen

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 John Sanders jfs at jfsanders.com
Wed Jun 6 08:14:57 EDT 2007

 

[] Romans 8:9 [] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS (Heb. 11:28) It is obvious that the aorist tense has lost its monopoly and that the perfect tense has gained use at the expense of the aorist. So the question here is whether the use of the perfect is in an “aorist sense” or in a “perfect sense” (that is as a perfective or as a substantive). And the only reason that the question comes up is because the paschal ceremony still continues. I suspect you can read it either way, it will not effect the theme that is being presented. You may even read it with both layers in mind. John SandersSuzhou, China Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to “inaugurationof a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to me, but I also findperfect forms tossed in as though they were aorists occasionally in the GNT.Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over-interpreting the perfect here? Webb Mealy _________________________________________________________________With Windows Live Hotmail, you can personalize your inbox with your favorite color.www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0607

 

[] Romans 8:9[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 6 08:27:06 EDT 2007

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28 [] Funk and ‘monitors’ On Jun 6, 2007, at 8:14 AM, John Sanders wrote:> PISTEI PEPOIHKEN [MWUSHS] TO PASCA KAI THN PROSCUSIN TOU hAIMATOS > (Heb. 11:28)> > It is obvious that the aorist tense has lost its monopoly and that > the perfect tense has gained use at the expense of the aorist. So > the question here is whether the use of the perfect is in an > “aorist sense” or in a “perfect sense” (that is as a perfective or > as a substantive). And the only reason that the question comes up > is because the paschal ceremony still continues.> > I suspect you can read it either way, it will not effect the theme > that is being presented. You may even read it with both layers in > mind.> > John Sanders> Suzhou, China> > Zerwick-Grosvenor says that PEPOIHKEN, as perfect, refers to > “inaugurationof a rite still observed”. This seems reasonable to > me, but I also findperfect forms tossed in as though they were > aorists occasionally in the GNT.Is Zerwick-Grosvenor over- > interpreting the perfect here? Webb MealyOne final note on PEPOIHKEN in Heb 11:28. While I did say (and think it probable) that the passover may have been an older ritual given a new meaning in the exodus experience, I acknowledge that this isn’t relevant to how we understand the tense of the verb PEPOIHKEN here. But I still do NOT think that some special sense of “inaugurate” or “establish” the ritual is indicated by the tense of PEPOIHKEN. I think that BDAG’s sense 2.f. is appropriate here, “perform, celebrate.” I think that the point in Heb 11:28 is that Moses carried out what he was told to do because he trusted God: he “got it done.” Call it “telic” if you want; I still don’t think there would be any difference in meaning between PEPOIHKEN and EPOIHSEN in this context — but others obviously think otherwise.I would put matters the other way around rather than as John has done above: I think it is the aorist that has gained use at the expense of the perfect. It is the usage of the perfect tense that is diminishing in Hellenistic Koine, not the usage of the aorist. Even more so, the pluperfect diminishes in use as the aorist serves its function to indicate anterior past action.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28[] Funk and ‘monitors’

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

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>