Hebrews 11:11

Hebrews 11:1

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE astransitional conjunction Kenneth Bent ken at cotr.com
Wed Aug 25 11:24:59 EDT 2010

 

[] Inscriptions [] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction Hebrews 11:1 εστιν δε πιστις ελπιζομενων υποστασις πραγματων ελεγχος ου βλεπομενων1 ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN UPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN 1 ¶ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (NIV) DE is commonly translated “now”. I keep running across what seem to be well intentioned but misinformed preachers who, because of the word “now” in the translation make some application in this manner: “Now faith is – It means faith is always “NOW” – in the present.” My understanding in reading Wallace is that “de” is a transitional conjunction. I haven’t been able to find any reference to DE translated as ‘NOW’ as being time referent. Of course, ESTIN is present active indicative, but that is not the basis on which they derive their application of the verse. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Kenneth Bentken at cotr.com

 

[] Inscriptions[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction Alex Poulos apviper at gmail.com
Wed Aug 25 12:05:00 EDT 2010

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE astransitional conjunction [] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction I’m a lurker, and not at all an expert, but I agree with you for what it’sworth. δε (DE) is simply a transition. Had the author wanted tocommunicate “now” in terms of present time, he would’ve thrown νυν (NUN) inthere somewhere (my guess, anyway).I do find it strange that every translation I looked at translated it as”Now…” except the REB and NLT. Everyone seems to follow the KJV. Theremight be a more suitable conjunction to link it back to 10:39 (as, for,etc.). I suppose anything translational choice is subject tomisunderstanding though.Alex PoulosSenior – Computer ScienceNC State UniversityOn Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Kenneth Bent <ken at cotr.com> wrote:> Hebrews 11:1 εστιν δε πιστις ελπιζομενων υποστασις πραγματων ελεγχος ου> βλεπομενων> 1 ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN UPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU> BLEPOMENWN> > 1 ¶ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do> not see. (NIV)> > DE is commonly translated “now”.> > I keep running across what seem to be well intentioned but misinformed> preachers who, because of the word “now” in the translation make some> application in this manner:> > “Now faith is – It means faith is always “NOW” – in the present.”> > My understanding in reading Wallace is that “de” is a transitional> conjunction. I haven’t been able to find any reference to DE translated as> ‘NOW’ as being time referent.> > Of course, ESTIN is present active indicative, but that is not the basis on> which they derive their application of the verse.> > Any thoughts would be appreciated.> > > Kenneth Bent> ken at cotr.com> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE astransitional conjunction[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DEastransitional conjunction Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Aug 25 12:42:53 EDT 2010

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question: Please no Heremeneuticsdiscussion [] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DEastransitional conjunction Hi Kenneth,Your question hits on one of the more significant mismatches between English and Greek. Here is the description I provide for the task that DE accomplishes. It just so happens that in English we tend to accomplish the same discourse task using temporal adverbs. Begin quote:One very important discourse task that every language needs to accomplish is for speakers or writers to mark where to break the discourse into smaller chunks. There is a limit to how much information we can take in without breaking it down into smaller pieces. Think p 43 about trying to listen to a run-on sentence, or trying to memorize a long list of items. You would probably have difficulty taking it all in. But if the run-on were properly formed into smaller clauses, and if the list of items were broken down into several smaller lists of several items each, the task of processing and retaining the information would become much easier.Languages use various devices for this task of “chunking” or segmenting the discourse into smaller bits for easier processing. The most obvious one is thematic breaks or discontinuities in the discourse. Typically such breaks entail a change of time, location, participant/topic or kind of action. Such changes represent natural discontinuities based on the discourse content. We are most likely to segment texts at junctures like these. But what happens in contexts of relative continuity, where there are no natural breaks? How are decisions made about chunking there?The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines continuity as “a connection or line of development with no sharp breaks”. Think about what is meant by “line of development.” If you are explaining a process to someone or formulating an argument of some kind, there will most likely be steps or stages in that “line of development.” So too in stories, which are made up of a series of events or scenes. The events themselves are often composed of distinct actions or reactions. Linguists refer to these distinct stages or steps as developments. Languages use various markers to signal new developments, particularly in contexts of relative continuity. Development markers guide the reader in breaking the discourse into meaningful chunks, based upon how the writer conceived of the action or argument.Returning to the other part of the BDAG definition, they note that δέ expresses “simple continuation.” Some of the English glosses they provide for this sense are now, then, and so. All three of these words are English adverbs, but at times they are used to accomplish the same kinds p 44 of discourse tasks as Greek conjunctions, marking a new development in the discourse. Here is how Dooley and Levinsohn describe it:Whereas connectives like “and” and some additives instruct the hearer to associate information together, some conjunctions convey the opposite and constrain the reader to move on to the next point. We will call these connectives “DEVELOPMENTAL MARKERS” because they indicate that the material so marked represents a new development in the story or argument, as far as the author’s purpose is concerned.We frequently use temporal expressions like then or now to mark developments in English.(1) End quoteYou are correct in thinking that drawing a specifically temporal inference from “now” in Heb 1:11 is wrong, but it is understandable if the person lacks access to Greek. The key thing to recognize is that English relies heavily on temporal adverbs for segmenting the discourse, for marking developments. They do this precisely because they are not semantically necessary. If they ARE semantically required, e.g. “NOW is when I want you to read my email, not LATER,” then they are most likely not doing some other function. Temporal development markers will typically be very generic (e.g. next, after that, then), with very little semantic information conveyed. If you want to read more of this chapter, it is posted at my website on the publications page: www.ntdiscourse.org/publications. The mismatch between Greek and English regarding discourse segmentation explains why DE is sometimes left untranslated, or translated using a temporal adverb. Steven E. Runge, DLittScholar-in-ResidenceLogos Bible Softwaresrunge at logos.comwww.logos.comwww.ntdiscourse.org(1) Steven E. Runge, A Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010), 42-44.—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Kenneth BentSent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:25 AMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: [] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunctionHebrews 11:1 εστιν δε πιστις ελπιζομενων υποστασις πραγματων ελεγχος ου βλεπομενων1 ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN UPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN 1 ¶ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (NIV) DE is commonly translated “now”. I keep running across what seem to be well intentioned but misinformed preachers who, because of the word “now” in the translation make some application in this manner: “Now faith is – It means faith is always “NOW” – in the present.” My understanding in reading Wallace is that “de” is a transitional conjunction. I haven’t been able to find any reference to DE translated as ‘NOW’ as being time referent. Of course, ESTIN is present active indicative, but that is not the basis on which they derive their application of the verse. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Kenneth Bentken at cotr.com — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question: Please no Heremeneuticsdiscussion[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DEastransitional conjunction

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction Kevin Riley klriley at alphalink.com.au
Wed Aug 25 18:38:02 EDT 2010

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction [] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction To take ‘now’ in this context as a temporal word is to misunderstand English. In standard (formal) English, ‘now’ is a good translation of ‘de’ in this instance, which is probably why so many translators use it. For it to have a temporal reference it would have to come somewhere else in the sentence. Actually, I am not sure you could put ‘now’ as a temporal reference into the sentence as it stands without a good bit of restructuring.I suspect the problem is a hermeneutical one rather than one with either the Greek or the English language.Kevin RileyOn 26/08/2010 2:05 AM, Alex Poulos wrote:> I’m a lurker, and not at all an expert, but I agree with you for what it’s> worth. δε (DE) is simply a transition. Had the author wanted to> communicate “now” in terms of present time, he would’ve thrown νυν (NUN) in> there somewhere (my guess, anyway).> > I do find it strange that every translation I looked at translated it as> “Now…” except the REB and NLT. Everyone seems to follow the KJV. There> might be a more suitable conjunction to link it back to 10:39 (as, for,> etc.). I suppose anything translational choice is subject to> misunderstanding though.> > Alex Poulos> Senior – Computer Science> NC State University> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Kenneth Bent<ken at cotr.com> wrote:> >> Hebrews 11:1 εστιν δε πιστις ελπιζομενων υποστασις πραγματων ελεγχος ου>> βλεπομενων>> 1 ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN UPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU>> BLEPOMENWN>> >> 1 ¶ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do>> not see. (NIV)>> >> DE is commonly translated “now”.>> >> I keep running across what seem to be well intentioned but misinformed>> preachers who, because of the word “now” in the translation make some>> application in this manner:>> >> “Now faith is – It means faith is always “NOW” – in the present.”>> >> My understanding in reading Wallace is that “de” is a transitional>> conjunction. I haven’t been able to find any reference to DE translated as>> ‘NOW’ as being time referent.>> >> Of course, ESTIN is present active indicative, but that is not the basis on>> which they derive their application of the verse.>> >> Any thoughts would be appreciated.>> >> >> Kenneth Bent>> ken at cotr.com>> >>>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DEastransitional conjunction Jeffrey T. Requadt jeffreyrequadt_list at hotmail.com
Wed Aug 25 21:53:27 EDT 2010

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DEastransitional conjunction [] strange “men” construction 1 Cor 2:15 Thanks, I will add that to my list of Greek Urban Legends. Everyone is still welcome to send me these off-list. No need to burden the list with them.—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Kenneth BentSent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:25 AMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: [] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunctionHebrews 11:1 εστιν δε πιστις ελπιζομενων υποστασις πραγματων ελεγχος ου βλεπομενων1 ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN UPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN 1 ¶ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (NIV) DE is commonly translated “now”. I keep running across what seem to be well intentioned but misinformed preachers who, because of the word “now” in the translation make some application in this manner: “Now faith is – It means faith is always “NOW” – in the present.” My understanding in reading Wallace is that “de” is a transitional conjunction. I haven’t been able to find any reference to DE translated as ‘NOW’ as being time referent. Of course, ESTIN is present active indicative, but that is not the basis on which they derive their application of the verse. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Kenneth Bentken at cotr.com — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DEastransitional conjunction[] strange “men” construction 1 Cor 2:15

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Wed Aug 25 23:52:49 EDT 2010

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction [] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE astransitional conjunction On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Kevin Riley <klriley at alphalink.com.au> wrote:> >  To take ‘now’ in this context as a temporal word is to misunderstand English.  In standard (formal) English, ‘now’ is a good translation of ‘de’ in this instance, which is probably why so many translators use it.  For it to have a temporal reference it would have to come somewhere else in the sentence.  Actually, I am not sure you could put ‘now’ as a temporal reference into the sentence as it stands without a good bit of restructuring.> > I suspect the problem is a hermeneutical one rather than one with either the Greek or the English language.> > Kevin Riley> How about ‘Well then’ instead of ‘Now’? It may remove ‘now’misunderstood as a temporal marker.Oun Kwon

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE astransitional conjunction

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE astransitional conjunction Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 26 11:59:07 EDT 2010

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction [] Newbie / Lurker question: Please no Heremeneutics discussion Sometimes I think we may too hard on our preachers. I once talked to an Arabic Christian about the difference between the Eastern and Western mindset and how such a one understands Scripture. For instance, the Western mindset is more linear, whereas the Eastern mindset is more general or all encompassing. For example, I mentioned Paul’s emphasis about the singular *seed* in Gal.3:16. TWi DE ABRAAM ERREQHSAN hAI EPAGGELIAI KAI TWi SPERMATI AUTOU. OU LEGEI• KAI TOIS SPERMASIN, hWS EPI POLLWN ALL᾽ hWS EF᾽ hENOS• KAI TWi SPERMATI SOU, hOS ESTIN CRISTOS. He said the Eastern mindset would never understand Abraham’s seed as referring to Christ, (except for the fact that Paul makes such an interpretation); rather, he would understand it to mean the nation.  We all approach Scripture with a particular mindset. Sometimes I think a preacher will approach a text and use it as a jumping board to demonstrate a particular point, like the example of *now* in Heb. 11:1. I do not know if we should always take them so literally.  He just uses the word *now* to show that faith always brings the potential future into a present possession. It possesses a hope and makes it a present reality. This is a common technique in preaching. He is just using the English juxtaposition of *now* and *faith* in this verse to demonstrate this point and does not mean to say the Greek is teaching that faith is always now. Now, I am not saying that some preachers may not ignorantly do this, or that the preacher in question did not do this. It seems from Kenneth’s post, that is exactly what he did. But I think sometimes a grammarian that is disciplined to look at things in a linear and analytical manner applies that mindset to preachers who are not thinking that way, but are thinking in a more broad and general manner. We should not take them so literally, but give them space to develop their points. In one way, they are following a respected hermeneutic of Judaism, and in some cases Early Christianity. Some Midrashic hermeneutics were more concerned with the practical applications of words within a text rather than a rigid literalism of the word within a text. Take, for example, the interpretation Hos. 11:1  by Matthew  in Matt. 2:15. I think, perhaps, we should give our *preaching* brethren a little more latitude and understanding and realize that many times they are not approaching the text with the same mindset of a grammarian, but are looking at the text with a more general mindset, looking at verses from a pastoral heart rather than a more literal teachers heart.  We should be thankful for their gift, and give them space, realizing that a grammarian would probably bore the flock to death. Cordially, Blue Harris________________________________From: Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Wed, August 25, 2010 8:52:49 PMSubject: Re: [] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunctionOn Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Kevin Riley <klriley at alphalink.com.au> wrote:> >  To take ‘now’ in this context as a temporal word is to misunderstand English. > In standard (formal) English, ‘now’ is a good translation of ‘de’ in this >instance, which is probably why so many translators use it.  For it to have a >temporal reference it would have to come somewhere else in the sentence. > Actually, I am not sure you could put ‘now’ as a temporal reference into the >sentence as it stands without a good bit of restructuring.> > I suspect the problem is a hermeneutical one rather than one with either the >Greek or the English language.> > Kevin Riley> How about ‘Well then’ instead of ‘Now’? It may remove ‘now’misunderstood as a temporal marker.Oun Kwon— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Newbie / Lurker question on Hebrews 11:1 DE as transitional conjunction[] Newbie / Lurker question: Please no Heremeneutics discussion
Hebrews 11:1 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue May 18 12:23:23 EDT 1999

 

Grammatical errors in Revelation? What is “bad Greek”? (was “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”) {Kevin}>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to thequestion? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is thatsupposed to mean?{Bill}* George, thanks for your diligence in pointing out chiasm. It is making memore attentive to this NT feature.* HUPOSTASIS: I used to think that “substance” was a horrible translation,but I now consider it quite inspired. It has two parts, just likeHUPOSTASIS, and each part relates to the corresponding part in the Koine:HUPO=sub, STASIS=stand. Also, the meaning comes across: that which standsunder something else – hence, it supports both “essence” and “foundation”senses.* in context, the author’s approach throughout the book is contrast andopposites – juxtaposing the “shadow” of the OT with the “substance” of theNT. Hence, “Complex, and convoluted of old God spoke in times past, BUT inthese last days of these [the Law and the Prophets] God is speaking throughSon.” Here too, the author has spoken of the certain doom of drawing back inunbelief, NOW he contrasts the incredible negative with the positive:receiving of promises by faith – which is the basis on which the hopes aredispensed, the empiricision [pardon me, Webster] of things unseen(intangible?).* There is a concurring passing in Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of anholyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.* faith, as the substance, is implied as faith in Christ, so is not somekind of Christless power.Bill Ross

 

Grammatical errors in Revelation?What is “bad Greek”? (was “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”)

Hebrews 11:1 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue May 18 12:23:23 EDT 1999

 

Grammatical errors in Revelation? What is “bad Greek”? (was “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”) {Kevin}>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to thequestion? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is thatsupposed to mean?{Bill}* George, thanks for your diligence in pointing out chiasm. It is making memore attentive to this NT feature.* HUPOSTASIS: I used to think that “substance” was a horrible translation,but I now consider it quite inspired. It has two parts, just likeHUPOSTASIS, and each part relates to the corresponding part in the Koine:HUPO=sub, STASIS=stand. Also, the meaning comes across: that which standsunder something else – hence, it supports both “essence” and “foundation”senses.* in context, the author’s approach throughout the book is contrast andopposites – juxtaposing the “shadow” of the OT with the “substance” of theNT. Hence, “Complex, and convoluted of old God spoke in times past, BUT inthese last days of these [the Law and the Prophets] God is speaking throughSon.” Here too, the author has spoken of the certain doom of drawing back inunbelief, NOW he contrasts the incredible negative with the positive:receiving of promises by faith – which is the basis on which the hopes aredispensed, the empiricision [pardon me, Webster] of things unseen(intangible?).* There is a concurring passing in Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of anholyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.* faith, as the substance, is implied as faith in Christ, so is not somekind of Christless power.Bill Ross

 

Grammatical errors in Revelation?What is “bad Greek”? (was “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”)

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 18 13:04:11 EDT 1999

 

Matt 11:28-30 Hebrews 11:1 At 11:23 AM -0500 5/18/99, Bill Ross wrote:>{Kevin}> >>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the>question? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is that>supposed to mean?> >{Bill}> >* George, thanks for your diligence in pointing out chiasm. It is making me>more attentive to this NT feature.Isn’t it fascinating how our list-server software can spit out–two weekslater–the self-same message from George that was sent to the list on thefifth of this month–and it will beget a brand new thread as if theprevious thread had never run its course!Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Matt 11:28-30Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 18 13:04:11 EDT 1999

 

Matt 11:28-30 Hebrews 11:1 At 11:23 AM -0500 5/18/99, Bill Ross wrote:>{Kevin}> >>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the>question? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is that>supposed to mean?> >{Bill}> >* George, thanks for your diligence in pointing out chiasm. It is making me>more attentive to this NT feature.Isn’t it fascinating how our list-server software can spit out–two weekslater–the self-same message from George that was sent to the list on thefifth of this month–and it will beget a brand new thread as if theprevious thread had never run its course!Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Matt 11:28-30Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Tue May 18 13:41:55 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 What is “bad Greek”? >From: “Carl W. Conrad”>Isn’t it fascinating how our list-server software can spit out–two weeks>later–the self-same message from George that was sent to the list on the >fifth of this month–Nor is this the first time it has happenned! Clay wrote me privately wondering why I was bringing up a long dead thread of his [Why NOW???] when a very long ago posting of mine mysteriously re-appeared a few days ago.I guess when we byte the devil, he bytes back!! :-)Bytten, Smytten, and Rued![Disadvocationalists at large]:-) 🙂 🙂George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Hebrews 11:1What is “bad Greek”?

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Tue May 18 13:41:55 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 What is “bad Greek”? >From: “Carl W. Conrad”>Isn’t it fascinating how our list-server software can spit out–two weeks>later–the self-same message from George that was sent to the list on the >fifth of this month–Nor is this the first time it has happenned! Clay wrote me privately wondering why I was bringing up a long dead thread of his [Why NOW???] when a very long ago posting of mine mysteriously re-appeared a few days ago.I guess when we byte the devil, he bytes back!! :-)Bytten, Smytten, and Rued![Disadvocationalists at large]:-) 🙂 🙂George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Hebrews 11:1What is “bad Greek”?

Hebrews 11:1 Jason Lee jllee at mailcity.com
Tue May 18 14:11:43 EDT 1999

 

What is “bad Greek”? Matt 11:28-30 Estin de pistis elpizomevoon hupostasis pragmatoon elenchos ou blepomenoonOne way of looking at Hebrews 11:1 is to consider elpizomevoon as objective genitive receiving the action from the action noun hupostasis, which is from huphistamai (cf. anastasis from anistamai). Greek hupostasis is equivalent to Latin substantia and English substance (hypo = sub, stasis = stantia). (In fact, hupostasis is the preferred theological term over the Latin persona in early church fathers’ description of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit, the three hypostases of the Godhead. This, in itself, is too big a topic to be glossed over here.) In Hebrews 11:1, the idea is faith substantiates the things hoped for, as hearing substantiates music. Hence, the footnote in ASV (1901) translates hupostasis as the giving substance to. J.N. Darby’s New Translation (1890) reads: Now faith is the substantiating of things hoped for … The RcV (1991) translates as Now faith is the substantiation of the things hoped for… The Amplified Bible (1987) inserts Faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses.As for the second half, elenchos is from elenchoo, meaning show, demonstrate, bring to light, expose, test, reprove, convict. One can say that pragmatoon ou blepomenoon is also an objective genitive as the object of elenchoo that faith brings to light. Or perhaps, it is a subjective genitive: the factually (ou, not mee) unseen things which convict. Most English versions render the second half as the conviction of things not seen. I suppose, one can also say the conviction comes out of the things not seen, thereby pragmatoon ou blepomenoon is a genitive (ablative) of source. This interpretation befits the context of Hebrews 11. Verse 1 gives the definition of faith; verses 2 through 40 enumerate the martyrs of faith, to which I can add one other example from Daniel 3. Remember the three friends of Daniel? When they refused to worship the golden image made by Nebuchadnezzar, what did they say to the king that made him so mad so as to heat up the furnace seven times hotter? It was not verse 17 (If it be so, our God, whom we serve, is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king), but verse 18 (But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up) that really set Nebuchadnezzar afire. It was verse 18 that demonstrated their faith, or their conviction that the idols are not God. The only God, who is, in fact, not seen, convicts them of His reality. Out of this conviction, they did not fear the king’s decree. This was their faith. Whether they were actually delivered out of the king’s furnace, or not, was beside the point.JasonGet your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.comGet your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com

 

What is “bad Greek”?Matt 11:28-30

Hebrews 11:1 Jason Lee jllee at mailcity.com
Tue May 18 14:11:43 EDT 1999

 

What is “bad Greek”? Matt 11:28-30 Estin de pistis elpizomevoon hupostasis pragmatoon elenchos ou blepomenoonOne way of looking at Hebrews 11:1 is to consider elpizomevoon as objective genitive receiving the action from the action noun hupostasis, which is from huphistamai (cf. anastasis from anistamai). Greek hupostasis is equivalent to Latin substantia and English substance (hypo = sub, stasis = stantia). (In fact, hupostasis is the preferred theological term over the Latin persona in early church fathers’ description of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit, the three hypostases of the Godhead. This, in itself, is too big a topic to be glossed over here.) In Hebrews 11:1, the idea is faith substantiates the things hoped for, as hearing substantiates music. Hence, the footnote in ASV (1901) translates hupostasis as the giving substance to. J.N. Darby’s New Translation (1890) reads: Now faith is the substantiating of things hoped for … The RcV (1991) translates as Now faith is the substantiation of the things hoped for… The Amplified Bible (1987) inserts Faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses.As for the second half, elenchos is from elenchoo, meaning show, demonstrate, bring to light, expose, test, reprove, convict. One can say that pragmatoon ou blepomenoon is also an objective genitive as the object of elenchoo that faith brings to light. Or perhaps, it is a subjective genitive: the factually (ou, not mee) unseen things which convict. Most English versions render the second half as the conviction of things not seen. I suppose, one can also say the conviction comes out of the things not seen, thereby pragmatoon ou blepomenoon is a genitive (ablative) of source. This interpretation befits the context of Hebrews 11. Verse 1 gives the definition of faith; verses 2 through 40 enumerate the martyrs of faith, to which I can add one other example from Daniel 3. Remember the three friends of Daniel? When they refused to worship the golden image made by Nebuchadnezzar, what did they say to the king that made him so mad so as to heat up the furnace seven times hotter? It was not verse 17 (If it be so, our God, whom we serve, is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king), but verse 18 (But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up) that really set Nebuchadnezzar afire. It was verse 18 that demonstrated their faith, or their conviction that the idols are not God. The only God, who is, in fact, not seen, convicts them of His reality. Out of this conviction, they did not fear the king’s decree. This was their faith. Whether they were actually delivered out of the king’s furnace, or not, was beside the point.JasonGet your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.comGet your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com

 

What is “bad Greek”?Matt 11:28-30

[] Hebrews 10.14 Morgan Powell mrpowell at tpg.com.au
Thu Sep 23 11:12:43 EDT 2004

 

[] RE: Accents – thanks for the response [] Hebrews 10.14 I was wondering about the translation of TOUS hAGIAZOMENOUS in hebrews 10:14.I notice the nasb gives it has “those who are sanctified.”the niv gives “those being made holy” which would capture the continuous sense of the present ptcple.I note also that just 4 verses earlier in hebrews 10:10 we find hHGIASMENOI – a perfect passive participle – been sanctified.Is there any justification for the present participle being translated with a perfect sense?thankyouMorgan Powellmrpowell at tpg.com.ausydney, Australia

 

[] RE: Accents – thanks for the response[] Hebrews 10.14

Hebrews 11:1 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Tue May 4 12:31:45 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Hebrews 11:1 At 12:04 PM 5/4/99 +0000, you wrote:>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows: >ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.> >1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite >article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and >English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it be >possible to render these words without the article, as in “Now faith is of >things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”?Or perhaps, “Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction without aid ofsight”.I agree with your assesment that the definite article is not necessary herein English either.> >2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it >possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like >“realities”?Or perhaps “deeds”, “actions”.>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance” >or “assurance” here. (I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a >discussion of this.) [snipped]I think “substantive” or some such meaning is most likely- though the rangeis fairly broad. Still, I take it in almost a philosophical way, andbelieve that that is how the word is intended.> >Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the >question? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is that >supposed to mean? Thanks in advance for whatever light you can shine on >these questions.Well, faith is substantive- it is not mere “pie in the sky in the sweet byeand bye”. I think the author here is intimating that faith is as real asmaterial reality. In fact, I might go so far as to say that he is almostusing the idea of substance and reality in a Platonic sense. I.e., it isthe heavenly that is real and the earthly is merely shadow of that reality.Faith then grasps the really real while discounting the apperance of”material” reality.> >Kevin L. BarneyBest,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPetros Baptist Church- PastorQuartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Biblefax- 978-231-5986email- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Hebrews 11:1Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Kevin L. Barney klbarney at yahoo.com
Tue May 4 12:04:32 EDT 1999

 

UPAKOUW + case? Hebrews 11:1 I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows: ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it be possible to render these words without the article, as in “Now faith is of things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”?2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like “realities”?3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance” or “assurance” here. (I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a discussion of this.) As background, here is the LXX usage of the word:ma’amad ground under water on which one can stand(Ps. 68:3)yequm living being (Deut. 11:6)cheled duration of life (Pss. 38:6, 88:48)michyah food, sustenance (Jdg. 6:4)kena’ah load, pack (Jer. 10:17)matstsab outpost (1 Sam. 14:4)matstsebah pillar (Ezekiel 26:11)ruqqamti I was (when an embryo) woven (Ps. 138:15)tekunah arrangement (Ezek. 43:11)sod council, group of intimates (Jer. 23:22)massa burden (Deut. 1:12)tochelet expectation, hope (Ps. 38:8)tiqwah hope (Ezek. 19:5)The word appears five times in the New Testament. In2 Cor. 9:4 and 11:17, the word seems to have referenceto “confidence.” The other three occurrences are allin Hebrews (including 11:1 itself). In RSV Hebrews1:3, we read “He reflects the glory of God and bearsthe very stamp of his nature [charakter teshypostaseos autou].” BAG renders”a(n exact) representation of his (=God’s) realbeing.” Other translations include:KJV “express image of his person”NASB “exact representation of his nature”NIV “exact representation of his being”Darby “expression of his substance”(A charakter most literally was the impression a sealmade, which of course would be in the exact image ofthe signet.) Here the term is used for “substance” or”real essence” as opposed to that which merely appearsto be. This usage might seem to settle the question in favorof the KJV rendering. But in RSV Hebrews 3:14 we read: “For we share in Christ, ifonly we hold our first confidence [ten archen teshypostaseos] to the end.” So does HUPOSTASIS in Hebrews 11:1 mean substance,real nature, essence, as in the KJV, or the foundationor ground of hope, confidence, assurance, as in theRSV? I was amazed at the difference of opinion on this question that I found.In favor of something like “substance”:KJV “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”NEB “Faith gives substance to our hopes, and makesus certain of realities we do not see.”Interpreter’s BD “being, nature”Anchor BD [should be interpreted in thephilosophical linguistic tradition as in KJV]Zerwick, Grammatical Analysis “substance”Vulgate sperandarum substantia rerum Hering “In hyperbolic language, which highlightsthe Christian’s absolute certainty that the divinepromises will be fulfilled, the writer declares thatfaith already grasps the substance of what ispromised.”In favor of something like “confidence” or”assurance”:RSV “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”NASB (=RSV)NIV “Now faith is being sure of what we hope forand certain of what we do not see.”Most other translationsInterpreter’s Bible [human faith doesn’t createthe reality of things hoped for; unseen realities haveindependent and objective validity. Faith gives *us*assurance, evidence, etc.]F.F. BruceBAG “faith is confident assurance of the things wehope for.”Dummelow “What is meant is that faith is thatwhich gives assurance or certainty of things still inthe future. They exist apart from faith, but it is byfaith that they are realised.”Riggenbach “The thought that faith gives a presentexistence to things hoped for in the future. . .brings faith very close to illusion.”Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the question? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is that supposed to mean? Thanks in advance for whatever light you can shine on these questions.Kevin L. BarneyHoffman Estates, Illinoisklbarney at yahoo.com

 

UPAKOUW + case?Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Tue May 4 12:31:45 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Hebrews 11:1 At 12:04 PM 5/4/99 +0000, you wrote:>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows: >ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.> >1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite >article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and >English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it be >possible to render these words without the article, as in “Now faith is of >things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”?Or perhaps, “Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction without aid ofsight”.I agree with your assesment that the definite article is not necessary herein English either.> >2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it >possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like >“realities”?Or perhaps “deeds”, “actions”.>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance” >or “assurance” here. (I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a >discussion of this.) [snipped]I think “substantive” or some such meaning is most likely- though the rangeis fairly broad. Still, I take it in almost a philosophical way, andbelieve that that is how the word is intended.> >Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the >question? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is that >supposed to mean? Thanks in advance for whatever light you can shine on >these questions.Well, faith is substantive- it is not mere “pie in the sky in the sweet byeand bye”. I think the author here is intimating that faith is as real asmaterial reality. In fact, I might go so far as to say that he is almostusing the idea of substance and reality in a Platonic sense. I.e., it isthe heavenly that is real and the earthly is merely shadow of that reality.Faith then grasps the really real while discounting the apperance of”material” reality.> >Kevin L. BarneyBest,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPetros Baptist Church- PastorQuartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Biblefax- 978-231-5986email- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Hebrews 11:1Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Kevin L. Barney klbarney at yahoo.com
Tue May 4 12:04:32 EDT 1999

 

UPAKOUW + case? Hebrews 11:1 I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows: ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it be possible to render these words without the article, as in “Now faith is of things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”?2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like “realities”?3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance” or “assurance” here. (I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a discussion of this.) As background, here is the LXX usage of the word:ma’amad ground under water on which one can stand(Ps. 68:3)yequm living being (Deut. 11:6)cheled duration of life (Pss. 38:6, 88:48)michyah food, sustenance (Jdg. 6:4)kena’ah load, pack (Jer. 10:17)matstsab outpost (1 Sam. 14:4)matstsebah pillar (Ezekiel 26:11)ruqqamti I was (when an embryo) woven (Ps. 138:15)tekunah arrangement (Ezek. 43:11)sod council, group of intimates (Jer. 23:22)massa burden (Deut. 1:12)tochelet expectation, hope (Ps. 38:8)tiqwah hope (Ezek. 19:5)The word appears five times in the New Testament. In2 Cor. 9:4 and 11:17, the word seems to have referenceto “confidence.” The other three occurrences are allin Hebrews (including 11:1 itself). In RSV Hebrews1:3, we read “He reflects the glory of God and bearsthe very stamp of his nature [charakter teshypostaseos autou].” BAG renders”a(n exact) representation of his (=God’s) realbeing.” Other translations include:KJV “express image of his person”NASB “exact representation of his nature”NIV “exact representation of his being”Darby “expression of his substance”(A charakter most literally was the impression a sealmade, which of course would be in the exact image ofthe signet.) Here the term is used for “substance” or”real essence” as opposed to that which merely appearsto be. This usage might seem to settle the question in favorof the KJV rendering. But in RSV Hebrews 3:14 we read: “For we share in Christ, ifonly we hold our first confidence [ten archen teshypostaseos] to the end.” So does HUPOSTASIS in Hebrews 11:1 mean substance,real nature, essence, as in the KJV, or the foundationor ground of hope, confidence, assurance, as in theRSV? I was amazed at the difference of opinion on this question that I found.In favor of something like “substance”:KJV “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”NEB “Faith gives substance to our hopes, and makesus certain of realities we do not see.”Interpreter’s BD “being, nature”Anchor BD [should be interpreted in thephilosophical linguistic tradition as in KJV]Zerwick, Grammatical Analysis “substance”Vulgate sperandarum substantia rerum Hering “In hyperbolic language, which highlightsthe Christian’s absolute certainty that the divinepromises will be fulfilled, the writer declares thatfaith already grasps the substance of what ispromised.”In favor of something like “confidence” or”assurance”:RSV “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”NASB (=RSV)NIV “Now faith is being sure of what we hope forand certain of what we do not see.”Most other translationsInterpreter’s Bible [human faith doesn’t createthe reality of things hoped for; unseen realities haveindependent and objective validity. Faith gives *us*assurance, evidence, etc.]F.F. BruceBAG “faith is confident assurance of the things wehope for.”Dummelow “What is meant is that faith is thatwhich gives assurance or certainty of things still inthe future. They exist apart from faith, but it is byfaith that they are realised.”Riggenbach “The thought that faith gives a presentexistence to things hoped for in the future. . .brings faith very close to illusion.”Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the question? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is that supposed to mean? Thanks in advance for whatever light you can shine on these questions.Kevin L. BarneyHoffman Estates, Illinoisklbarney at yahoo.com

 

UPAKOUW + case?Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Tue May 4 13:02:11 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Greek OCR I have a translation that renders 11:1 as, “Faith is the substantiationof things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Is there anymerit to this?Dr. Theodore “Ted” MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.comOn Tue, 04 May 1999 12:31:45 -0400 Jim West <jwest at Highland.Net> writes:>At 12:04 PM 5/4/99 +0000, you wrote:>>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as >follows: >>ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU >BLEPOMENWN.>> >>1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a >definite >>article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that >Greek and >>English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it >be >>possible to render these words without the article, as in “Now faith >is of >>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not >seen”?> >Or perhaps, “Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction without >aid of>sight”.>I agree with your assesment that the definite article is not necessary >here>in English either.> >> >>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? >Could it >>possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something >like >>“realities”?> >Or perhaps “deeds”, “actions”.> > >>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as >“substance” >>or “assurance” here. (I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a >>discussion of this.) [snipped]> >I think “substantive” or some such meaning is most likely- though the >range>is fairly broad. Still, I take it in almost a philosophical way, and>believe that that is how the word is intended.> >> >>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to >the >>question? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is that > >>supposed to mean? Thanks in advance for whatever light you can shine >on >>these questions.> >Well, faith is substantive- it is not mere “pie in the sky in the >sweet bye>and bye”. I think the author here is intimating that faith is as real >as>material reality. In fact, I might go so far as to say that he is >almost>using the idea of substance and reality in a Platonic sense. I.e., it >is>the heavenly that is real and the earthly is merely shadow of that >reality.>Faith then grasps the really real while discounting the apperance of>“material” reality.> >> >>Kevin L. Barney> >Best,> >Jim> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++> >Jim West, ThD>Petros Baptist Church- Pastor>Quartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Bible> >fax- 978-231-5986>email- jwest at highland.net>web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: thmann at juno.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to >subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

Hebrews 11:1Greek OCR

Hebrews 11:1 Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Tue May 4 13:02:11 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Greek OCR I have a translation that renders 11:1 as, “Faith is the substantiationof things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Is there anymerit to this?Dr. Theodore “Ted” MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.comOn Tue, 04 May 1999 12:31:45 -0400 Jim West <jwest at Highland.Net> writes:>At 12:04 PM 5/4/99 +0000, you wrote:>>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as >follows: >>ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU >BLEPOMENWN.>> >>1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a >definite >>article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that >Greek and >>English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it >be >>possible to render these words without the article, as in “Now faith >is of >>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not >seen”?> >Or perhaps, “Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction without >aid of>sight”.>I agree with your assesment that the definite article is not necessary >here>in English either.> >> >>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? >Could it >>possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something >like >>“realities”?> >Or perhaps “deeds”, “actions”.> > >>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as >“substance” >>or “assurance” here. (I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a >>discussion of this.) [snipped]> >I think “substantive” or some such meaning is most likely- though the >range>is fairly broad. Still, I take it in almost a philosophical way, and>believe that that is how the word is intended.> >> >>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to >the >>question? And if the translation should be “substance,” what is that > >>supposed to mean? Thanks in advance for whatever light you can shine >on >>these questions.> >Well, faith is substantive- it is not mere “pie in the sky in the >sweet bye>and bye”. I think the author here is intimating that faith is as real >as>material reality. In fact, I might go so far as to say that he is >almost>using the idea of substance and reality in a Platonic sense. I.e., it >is>the heavenly that is real and the earthly is merely shadow of that >reality.>Faith then grasps the really real while discounting the apperance of>“material” reality.> >> >>Kevin L. Barney> >Best,> >Jim> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++> >Jim West, ThD>Petros Baptist Church- Pastor>Quartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Bible> >fax- 978-231-5986>email- jwest at highland.net>web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: thmann at juno.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to >subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

Hebrews 11:1Greek OCR

Hebrews 11:1 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Tue May 4 14:55:44 EDT 1999

 

UPAKOUW + case? Greek OCR >So does HUPOSTASIS in Hebrews 11:1 mean substance,>real nature, essence, as in the KJV, or the foundation>or ground of hope, confidence, assurance, as in the>RSV? I was amazed at the difference of opinion on this question that I>found.> >In favor of something like “substance”:> How about:Faith is the underlying reality of our hope, conclusive proof of unseen facts.Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think PRAGMATWN belongs toELPIZOMENWN and is implied with BLEPOMENWN because it agrees with both incase and number.I think the definite article is needed simply to smooth out the English,not because it adds anything to the sense of the sentence.Steve—————————————————————————–| Allegro Graphics, Inc. — Allegro Digital Media, Inc. || 4132 Industrial Drive| | Saint Peters, Missouri 63376 || 1-888-819-8166 Toll Free| —————————————————————————–|Specializing in Database-Managed Printing and Webhosting|—————————————————————————–

 

UPAKOUW + case?Greek OCR

Hebrews 11:1 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Tue May 4 14:55:44 EDT 1999

 

UPAKOUW + case? Greek OCR >So does HUPOSTASIS in Hebrews 11:1 mean substance,>real nature, essence, as in the KJV, or the foundation>or ground of hope, confidence, assurance, as in the>RSV? I was amazed at the difference of opinion on this question that I>found.> >In favor of something like “substance”:> How about:Faith is the underlying reality of our hope, conclusive proof of unseen facts.Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think PRAGMATWN belongs toELPIZOMENWN and is implied with BLEPOMENWN because it agrees with both incase and number.I think the definite article is needed simply to smooth out the English,not because it adds anything to the sense of the sentence.Steve—————————————————————————–| Allegro Graphics, Inc. — Allegro Digital Media, Inc. || 4132 Industrial Drive| | Saint Peters, Missouri 63376 || 1-888-819-8166 Toll Free| —————————————————————————–|Specializing in Database-Managed Printing and Webhosting|—————————————————————————–

 

UPAKOUW + case?Greek OCR

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 5 09:08:08 EDT 1999

 

Symmachus and Aquila Greek texts Hebrews 11:1 I’ve read previous answers, and while I’m not sure I can add anything”substantive” to what a couple others have said, I do have some thoughtsabout hUPOSTASIS in particular.At 11:29 AM -0500 5/4/99, Kevin L. Barney wrote:>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows:>ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.> >1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite>article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and>English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it be>possible to render these words without the article, as in “Now faith is of>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”?I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” differencehere, but it does leave open the possibility that the participlesELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative ratherthan attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on thefundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing theparticiples as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (orhow I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis ofhappenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happeningswhen we do not see them.” I’ll try to elucidate as I go along.>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it>possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like>“realities”?I believe that both participles must depend upon PRAGMATWN. The word, whichmost essentially means “things done” or “things to do,” has an interestingrange in historical Greek, including: “affairs,” “troubles/worries,””events,” “facts” (as opposed to “hearsay”). I think it’s pretty close (inits want of concrete specificity and range of meanings to the Latin pluralnoun, RES. which gets translated as “things” most frequently, if it doesn’thave some adjective or participle indicating an idiomatic use. In ourcontext, I think “happenings” or “events” is most appropriate, inasmuch asthe theme in the context is eschatological fulfillment. Yet the sense of”reality” as what has permanence as opposed to what only appears real inthis perishing world-age must also be implicit, I think, in thiseschatological perspective.>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance”>or “assurance” here. (I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a>discussion of this.)I’m not going to cite your entire “crowd of witnesses,” although I wouldwant to say that the very range of senses that you cite from LXX and NTusages of hUPOSTASIS, interpretations of a broad range of ‘authoritative’Biblical versions and opinions of commentators and scholarly referenceworks obviously demonstrates that there isn’t any absolute consensus on themeaning of the word in this particular passage. It does look, does it not,as if the ways of understanding it are fundamentally two: (1) being,essence: what a thing really is (this is what would be termed the”philosophical” usage; and (2) confidence, assurance.(1) I rather think that a little etymology and word-history, though notabsolutely conclusive, may well be illuminating here. For the philosophicsense of “substance,” I think the single most important factor is that theGreek hUPO-STASIS was carried over into a precise etymological equivalentin Latin as SUB-STANTIA, which Latin word has “substance” as an Englishderivative (although English “substance” certainly doesn’t always mean thesame thing in every context that Latin SUBSTANTIA means). A factor of greatimport for the usage of SUBSTANTIA is that the Latin word was also used totranslate Aristotle’s OUSIA, which has two distinct meanings and wasaccordingly conveyed into Latin with SUBSTANTIA for the sense of “being” as”a real thing” and with ESSENTIA (a newly-coined word) for the sense of”essential character” or the conceptual totality that constitutes thedistinctive being of any “real thing.” It’s worth noting also, of course,that hUPOSTASIS is a word playing an important role in the process ofdefinition of trinitarian doctrine, something into which I certainly don’twant to go here, as my concern is diction rather than theology.For my part, I do NOT think that hUPOSTASIS in Heb 11:1 should beunderstood in the philosophic sense.(2) Returning to etymology (it was more word-history at play in the othersense attributed to hUPOSTASIS), it should be noted that, in a literaletymological sense, a hUPO-STASIS is “that which stands under (somethingelse)” or “the process of standing under something else.” I think one canreadily discern the linkage of this etymology to the philosophic sense ifone assume that what stands under anything is more “basic” or”fundamental”–an early Greek philosopher might have said it is the ARCHupon which transient phenomenal things “depend” or from which they”derive.” But the sense of “underpinning” or “basis” or “ground to standon” leads also to the notion of “assurance”–and that is the sense thatseems to me most appropriate in Heb 11:1. That is, Faith is what we standon, what we take our stance upon when we anticipate a future that we cannotsee. It is this sense of hUPOSTASIS, I think, which more aptly illuminatesthe string of patriarchal exempla who acted PISTEI. I think this is what ismade clear later in 11:14-16: hOI GAR TOIAUTA LEGONTES EMFANIZOUSIN hOTIPATRIDA EPIZHTOUSIN. KAI EI MEN EKEINHS EMNHMONEUON AF’ hHS EXEBHSAN, EICONAN KARION ANAKAMYAI; NUN DE KREITTONOS OREGONTAI, TOUT’ ESTIN EPOURANIOU.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/

 

Symmachus and Aquila Greek textsHebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 5 12:07:12 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Hebrews 11:1 On 05/05/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:> I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” difference> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather> than attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on the> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or> how I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis of> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings> when we do not see them.” I’ll try to elucidate as I go along.> > Dear Carl, why are the participles in the genitive case? Your translationsseem to imply that they are genitive absolutes. But they lack subjects, sothey do not look like genitive absolutes. RespectfullyMoon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Koreaas predicates

 

Hebrews 11:1Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 5 12:07:12 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Hebrews 11:1 On 05/05/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:> I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” difference> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather> than attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on the> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or> how I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis of> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings> when we do not see them.” I’ll try to elucidate as I go along.> > Dear Carl, why are the participles in the genitive case? Your translationsseem to imply that they are genitive absolutes. But they lack subjects, sothey do not look like genitive absolutes. RespectfullyMoon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Koreaas predicates

 

Hebrews 11:1Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 5 09:08:08 EDT 1999

 

Symmachus and Aquila Greek texts Hebrews 11:1 I’ve read previous answers, and while I’m not sure I can add anything”substantive” to what a couple others have said, I do have some thoughtsabout hUPOSTASIS in particular.At 11:29 AM -0500 5/4/99, Kevin L. Barney wrote:>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows:>ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.> >1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite>article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and>English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it be>possible to render these words without the article, as in “Now faith is of>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”?I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” differencehere, but it does leave open the possibility that the participlesELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative ratherthan attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on thefundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing theparticiples as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (orhow I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis ofhappenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happeningswhen we do not see them.” I’ll try to elucidate as I go along.>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it>possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like>“realities”?I believe that both participles must depend upon PRAGMATWN. The word, whichmost essentially means “things done” or “things to do,” has an interestingrange in historical Greek, including: “affairs,” “troubles/worries,””events,” “facts” (as opposed to “hearsay”). I think it’s pretty close (inits want of concrete specificity and range of meanings to the Latin pluralnoun, RES. which gets translated as “things” most frequently, if it doesn’thave some adjective or participle indicating an idiomatic use. In ourcontext, I think “happenings” or “events” is most appropriate, inasmuch asthe theme in the context is eschatological fulfillment. Yet the sense of”reality” as what has permanence as opposed to what only appears real inthis perishing world-age must also be implicit, I think, in thiseschatological perspective.>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance”>or “assurance” here. (I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a>discussion of this.)I’m not going to cite your entire “crowd of witnesses,” although I wouldwant to say that the very range of senses that you cite from LXX and NTusages of hUPOSTASIS, interpretations of a broad range of ‘authoritative’Biblical versions and opinions of commentators and scholarly referenceworks obviously demonstrates that there isn’t any absolute consensus on themeaning of the word in this particular passage. It does look, does it not,as if the ways of understanding it are fundamentally two: (1) being,essence: what a thing really is (this is what would be termed the”philosophical” usage; and (2) confidence, assurance.(1) I rather think that a little etymology and word-history, though notabsolutely conclusive, may well be illuminating here. For the philosophicsense of “substance,” I think the single most important factor is that theGreek hUPO-STASIS was carried over into a precise etymological equivalentin Latin as SUB-STANTIA, which Latin word has “substance” as an Englishderivative (although English “substance” certainly doesn’t always mean thesame thing in every context that Latin SUBSTANTIA means). A factor of greatimport for the usage of SUBSTANTIA is that the Latin word was also used totranslate Aristotle’s OUSIA, which has two distinct meanings and wasaccordingly conveyed into Latin with SUBSTANTIA for the sense of “being” as”a real thing” and with ESSENTIA (a newly-coined word) for the sense of”essential character” or the conceptual totality that constitutes thedistinctive being of any “real thing.” It’s worth noting also, of course,that hUPOSTASIS is a word playing an important role in the process ofdefinition of trinitarian doctrine, something into which I certainly don’twant to go here, as my concern is diction rather than theology.For my part, I do NOT think that hUPOSTASIS in Heb 11:1 should beunderstood in the philosophic sense.(2) Returning to etymology (it was more word-history at play in the othersense attributed to hUPOSTASIS), it should be noted that, in a literaletymological sense, a hUPO-STASIS is “that which stands under (somethingelse)” or “the process of standing under something else.” I think one canreadily discern the linkage of this etymology to the philosophic sense ifone assume that what stands under anything is more “basic” or”fundamental”–an early Greek philosopher might have said it is the ARCHupon which transient phenomenal things “depend” or from which they”derive.” But the sense of “underpinning” or “basis” or “ground to standon” leads also to the notion of “assurance”–and that is the sense thatseems to me most appropriate in Heb 11:1. That is, Faith is what we standon, what we take our stance upon when we anticipate a future that we cannotsee. It is this sense of hUPOSTASIS, I think, which more aptly illuminatesthe string of patriarchal exempla who acted PISTEI. I think this is what ismade clear later in 11:14-16: hOI GAR TOIAUTA LEGONTES EMFANIZOUSIN hOTIPATRIDA EPIZHTOUSIN. KAI EI MEN EKEINHS EMNHMONEUON AF’ hHS EXEBHSAN, EICONAN KARION ANAKAMYAI; NUN DE KREITTONOS OREGONTAI, TOUT’ ESTIN EPOURANIOU.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/

 

Symmachus and Aquila Greek textsHebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 5 12:14:42 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Hebrews 11:1 At 11:08 AM -0500 5/5/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>On 05/05/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:> >> I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” difference>> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles>> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather>> than attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on the>> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the>> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or>> how I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis of>> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings>> when we do not see them.” I’ll try to elucidate as I go along.>> >> >Dear Carl, why are the participles in the genitive case? Your translations>seem to imply that they are genitive absolutes. But they lack subjects, so>they do not look like genitive absolutes.Both participles clearly, I think, qualify PRAGMATWN, which is genitiveplural, I’ve conveyed PRAGMATWN (not altogether happily) in the aboveversion as “happenings” with backwards reference in “them” as objects of”are anticipating” and “do not see.” You are right of course: there’s notreally a danger of understanding PRAGMATWN ELPIZOMENWN or PRAGMATWN OUBLEPOMENWN as genitive absolutes because we have the noun-sentenceconstruction upon which this genitive plural and its attached participlesmust hang: PISTIS (ESTI) hUPOSTASIS, ELEGCOS.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 11:1Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 5 12:14:42 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Hebrews 11:1 At 11:08 AM -0500 5/5/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>On 05/05/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:> >> I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” difference>> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles>> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather>> than attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on the>> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the>> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or>> how I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis of>> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings>> when we do not see them.” I’ll try to elucidate as I go along.>> >> >Dear Carl, why are the participles in the genitive case? Your translations>seem to imply that they are genitive absolutes. But they lack subjects, so>they do not look like genitive absolutes.Both participles clearly, I think, qualify PRAGMATWN, which is genitiveplural, I’ve conveyed PRAGMATWN (not altogether happily) in the aboveversion as “happenings” with backwards reference in “them” as objects of”are anticipating” and “do not see.” You are right of course: there’s notreally a danger of understanding PRAGMATWN ELPIZOMENWN or PRAGMATWN OUBLEPOMENWN as genitive absolutes because we have the noun-sentenceconstruction upon which this genitive plural and its attached participlesmust hang: PISTIS (ESTI) hUPOSTASIS, ELEGCOS.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 11:1Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 5 12:29:52 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 MENOUN in Luke 11.28 On 05/05/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:> > I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” difference> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather> than attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on the> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or> how I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis of> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings> when we do not see them.” It seems that three grammatical approaches are suggested for interpretingthe participles in Heb 11.1.1) predicates (Carl)2) attributive (Jim): “Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction without aid of sight”.3) the genitives of substantives (Kevin): “Now faith is of >things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”.To some people including me, the options 1) and 2) might be quite surprising.If 2) is right, why are the participles in the genitive case? I would expectthem in the nominative case.If they were used as predicates, I would guess, they are supposed to describe somethingabout PRAGMATWN (genitive), because the participles are also in the genitive case, not about “us”.But I know that my questions might have been raised because of my ignoranceabout the usage of the genitive case of participles.RespectfullyMoon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea are

 

Hebrews 11:1MENOUN in Luke 11.28

Hebrews 11:1 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Wed May 5 12:29:52 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 MENOUN in Luke 11.28 On 05/05/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:> > I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” difference> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather> than attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on the> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or> how I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis of> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings> when we do not see them.” It seems that three grammatical approaches are suggested for interpretingthe participles in Heb 11.1.1) predicates (Carl)2) attributive (Jim): “Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction without aid of sight”.3) the genitives of substantives (Kevin): “Now faith is of >things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”.To some people including me, the options 1) and 2) might be quite surprising.If 2) is right, why are the participles in the genitive case? I would expectthem in the nominative case.If they were used as predicates, I would guess, they are supposed to describe somethingabout PRAGMATWN (genitive), because the participles are also in the genitive case, not about “us”.But I know that my questions might have been raised because of my ignoranceabout the usage of the genitive case of participles.RespectfullyMoon-ryul JungAssistant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea are

 

Hebrews 11:1MENOUN in Luke 11.28

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 5 13:34:46 EDT 1999

 

P. Comfort’s new book MENOUN in Luke 11.28 I regret that I’ve evidently not made myself clear, but I’ll try again.At 12:29 PM -0500 5/5/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>On 05/05/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:>> > >> I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” difference>> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles>> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather>> than attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on the>> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the>> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or>> how I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis of>> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings>> when we do not see them.”> >It seems that three grammatical approaches are suggested for interpreting>the participles in Heb 11.1.>1) predicates (Carl)I would prefer the term “predicative.” And I did not say above that Idefinitely considered these participles to be “predicative,” but only that,in the absence of articles (TWN ELPIZOMENWN, TWN OU BLEPOMENWN) thepossibility to read them as predicative lies open.>2) attributive (Jim): “Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction>without aid of sight”.I take it this is a paraphrase of the intent rather than an attempt atliteral translation; I must say that to me personally, it comes close toexplaining OBSCURUM PER OBSCURIUS. I have no idea what “substantivehopefulness” might be. And yet, I WOULD agree with Jim that the mostnatural way to understand the participles is in an attributive function.I’d convey that as “assurance of things hoped for and canon of things notseen.” “Hoped for” and “not seen” could, under the normal understanding ofattributive participles, be conveyed as relative clauses: “assurance ofthings that are hoped for, canon of things that aren’t seen.”>3) the genitives of substantives (Kevin):> “Now faith is of>>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”.I honestly thought (and still do) that Kevin meant this version to conveythe function of the participles as attributive with the genitive pluralnoun PRAGMATWN.>To some people including me, the options 1) and 2) might be quite>surprising.> >If 2) is right, why are the participles in the genitive case? I would>expect>them in the nominative case.>If they were used as predicates, I would guess,>they are supposed to describe something>about PRAGMATWN (genitive), because the participles are also>in the genitive case, not about “us”.The participles are in the genitive case for the same reason whether theyare understood as “attributive” OR “predicative”–because theyqualify/modify PRAGMATWN, which is genitive plural; PRAGMATWN in turndepends upon hUPOSTASIS and (I believe) equally upon ELEGCOS.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/

 

P. Comfort’s new bookMENOUN in Luke 11.28

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 5 13:34:46 EDT 1999

 

P. Comfort’s new book MENOUN in Luke 11.28 I regret that I’ve evidently not made myself clear, but I’ll try again.At 12:29 PM -0500 5/5/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>On 05/05/99, “”Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>” wrote:>> > >> I don’t think the absence of an article makes a “substantive” difference>> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles>> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather>> than attributive. I don’t really think this has a signficant bearing on the>> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the>> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or>> how I, at any rate, perceive it)–my paraphrase: “Faith is the basis of>> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings>> when we do not see them.”> >It seems that three grammatical approaches are suggested for interpreting>the participles in Heb 11.1.>1) predicates (Carl)I would prefer the term “predicative.” And I did not say above that Idefinitely considered these participles to be “predicative,” but only that,in the absence of articles (TWN ELPIZOMENWN, TWN OU BLEPOMENWN) thepossibility to read them as predicative lies open.>2) attributive (Jim): “Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction>without aid of sight”.I take it this is a paraphrase of the intent rather than an attempt atliteral translation; I must say that to me personally, it comes close toexplaining OBSCURUM PER OBSCURIUS. I have no idea what “substantivehopefulness” might be. And yet, I WOULD agree with Jim that the mostnatural way to understand the participles is in an attributive function.I’d convey that as “assurance of things hoped for and canon of things notseen.” “Hoped for” and “not seen” could, under the normal understanding ofattributive participles, be conveyed as relative clauses: “assurance ofthings that are hoped for, canon of things that aren’t seen.”>3) the genitives of substantives (Kevin):> “Now faith is of>>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen”.I honestly thought (and still do) that Kevin meant this version to conveythe function of the participles as attributive with the genitive pluralnoun PRAGMATWN.>To some people including me, the options 1) and 2) might be quite>surprising.> >If 2) is right, why are the participles in the genitive case? I would>expect>them in the nominative case.>If they were used as predicates, I would guess,>they are supposed to describe something>about PRAGMATWN (genitive), because the participles are also>in the genitive case, not about “us”.The participles are in the genitive case for the same reason whether theyare understood as “attributive” OR “predicative”–because theyqualify/modify PRAGMATWN, which is genitive plural; PRAGMATWN in turndepends upon hUPOSTASIS and (I believe) equally upon ELEGCOS.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/

 

P. Comfort’s new bookMENOUN in Luke 11.28

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 7 02:04:16 EDT 1999

 

Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon? Luke 4:5 >From: “Kevin L. Barney”>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows:>ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it>possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like >“realities”?>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance” >or “assurance” here.>So does HUPOSTASIS in Hebrews 11:1 mean substance,>real nature, essence, as in the KJV, or the foundation>or ground of hope, confidence, assurance, as in the>RSV>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the >question? And if the translation should be “substance,”what is that supposed to mean?Kevin ~I’ve been mulling this one over, and noticed the very chiastic syntax of this little passage:ESTIN DE PISTIS:a] ELPIZOMENWNb] UPOSTASISc] PRAGMATWNb’] ELEGCOSa’] OU BLEPOMENWNNotice the enclosing by participles of the whole of the definition [a and a’], and the participial center [c]. Faith is pragmatic and ongoing [present participles]!Also notice the alternating progression of enclosures by threes ~ abc, bcb’, cb’a’.I have a hard time understanding faith as the ‘substance’ of matters unseen. That would seem to make the object of faith into faith itself. I don’t think so… But it is possible…And it’s still hard to translate! So I don’t know if this helps…George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon?Luke 4:5

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 7 02:04:16 EDT 1999

 

Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon? Luke 4:5 >From: “Kevin L. Barney”>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows:>ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it>possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like >“realities”?>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance” >or “assurance” here.>So does HUPOSTASIS in Hebrews 11:1 mean substance,>real nature, essence, as in the KJV, or the foundation>or ground of hope, confidence, assurance, as in the>RSV>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the >question? And if the translation should be “substance,”what is that supposed to mean?Kevin ~I’ve been mulling this one over, and noticed the very chiastic syntax of this little passage:ESTIN DE PISTIS:a] ELPIZOMENWNb] UPOSTASISc] PRAGMATWNb’] ELEGCOSa’] OU BLEPOMENWNNotice the enclosing by participles of the whole of the definition [a and a’], and the participial center [c]. Faith is pragmatic and ongoing [present participles]!Also notice the alternating progression of enclosures by threes ~ abc, bcb’, cb’a’.I have a hard time understanding faith as the ‘substance’ of matters unseen. That would seem to make the object of faith into faith itself. I don’t think so… But it is possible…And it’s still hard to translate! So I don’t know if this helps…George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon?Luke 4:5
Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 7 13:40:36 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 Hebrews 11:1 Hi Kevin ~You have me suffering from what I am now referring to as “11:1 fixation”!! :-)>From: “Kevin L. Barney>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows:ESTIN DE PISTISa] ELPIZOMENWNb] HUPOSTASISc] PRAGMATWNb’] ELEGXOSa’] OU BLEPOMENWN.You can see that I rearranged in diagrammatic form the text… [My previous response doing this has not shown up on yet.]>1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite>article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and>English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it be>possible to render these words without the article, as in>“Now faith is of things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of >things not seen”?I sure don’t see any problem with this approach. It seems to work either way, so my preference is with the English article because of the formulaic [chiastic] nature of the ‘definition’.>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? >Could it >possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like >“realities”?By case endings it belongs with both, and its centering between them as well argues for its ‘distribution’ to both, as does the chiastic grammatical structure of the whole.I started it out using the gloss “matters” for PRAGMATWN ~ The trick is to come up with an English word that includes the idea of ‘pragmatic’. ‘Undertakings’ seems close… The idea that faith is of those things that are practical and done by people seems essential, more so than ‘realities’, which loses this focus. “Actions” seems perhaps best…>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance” >or “assurance” here.I share your amazement at the broad range of usages and renderings of this word. And Carl’s treatment of it seems right on target. I started with the gloss ‘basis’, but finally have come to prefer ‘foundation’, meaning that which stands under and supports something, as per its lexical roots.>So does HUPOSTASIS in Hebrews 11:1 mean substance,>real nature, essence, as in the KJV, or the foundation>or ground of hope, confidence, assurance, as in the>RSV? I was amazed at the difference of opinion on this question that I >found.>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the >question?Because of the chiastic formulation, this definition can and should be understood 3 ways simultaneously:1] As it is written. [a – b – c – b’ – a’]2] a – a’ – b – b’ – c3] c – b – b’ – a – a’So how to translate?? [in order!]1] “Faith is of [things] hoped for, [the] foundation of [their] undertakings, a demonstration of [things] unseen.”2] “Faith is of things hoped for [yet] not seen, [their] foundation [and] demonstration, from [our] actions.”3] “Faith is of actions [their] foundation [and] demonstration of [their] being hoped for [yet] unseen.All three suffer greatly… Hence my 11:1 obsession!So in English, here is a try:”Faith is of actions the foundation of what is hoped for, and the evidence of what is not seen.” [c – b – a – b’ – a’][I have to chuckle at what a Greek would have to think if this were written in this word order in the Koine! He would be scrambling for his syntactical socks as frantically as I am!! Back-translation is a brutal test!]This one still needs some time to simmer on the back burner… I have this nagging idea that there is as well a cause and effect going on here, whereby the evidence arises as a consequence in some way…?George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Acts 2:6Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Fri May 7 13:59:32 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Relationship between the Alands At 10:40 AM 5/7/99 -0700, you wrote:>ESTIN DE PISTIS>a] ELPIZOMENWN>b] HUPOSTASIS>c] PRAGMATWN>b’] ELEGXOS>a’] OU BLEPOMENWN.methinks thou dost see chiasm in too many places.Your rendering [snipped for sake of space] is really quite unlikely. Ithink that perhaps the chiasm fixation has caused you to render it in a mostunwholesome way.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPetros Baptist Church- PastorQuartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Biblefax- 978-231-5986email- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Hebrews 11:1Relationship between the Alands

Hebrews 11:1 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Fri May 7 13:59:32 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Relationship between the Alands At 10:40 AM 5/7/99 -0700, you wrote:>ESTIN DE PISTIS>a] ELPIZOMENWN>b] HUPOSTASIS>c] PRAGMATWN>b’] ELEGXOS>a’] OU BLEPOMENWN.methinks thou dost see chiasm in too many places.Your rendering [snipped for sake of space] is really quite unlikely. Ithink that perhaps the chiasm fixation has caused you to render it in a mostunwholesome way.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPetros Baptist Church- PastorQuartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Biblefax- 978-231-5986email- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Hebrews 11:1Relationship between the Alands

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 7 13:40:36 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 Hebrews 11:1 Hi Kevin ~You have me suffering from what I am now referring to as “11:1 fixation”!! :-)>From: “Kevin L. Barney>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows:ESTIN DE PISTISa] ELPIZOMENWNb] HUPOSTASISc] PRAGMATWNb’] ELEGXOSa’] OU BLEPOMENWN.You can see that I rearranged in diagrammatic form the text… [My previous response doing this has not shown up on yet.]>1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite>article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and>English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn’t it be>possible to render these words without the article, as in>“Now faith is of things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of >things not seen”?I sure don’t see any problem with this approach. It seems to work either way, so my preference is with the English article because of the formulaic [chiastic] nature of the ‘definition’.>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? >Could it >possibly have a stronger force than “things” here; maybe something like >“realities”?By case endings it belongs with both, and its centering between them as well argues for its ‘distribution’ to both, as does the chiastic grammatical structure of the whole.I started it out using the gloss “matters” for PRAGMATWN ~ The trick is to come up with an English word that includes the idea of ‘pragmatic’. ‘Undertakings’ seems close… The idea that faith is of those things that are practical and done by people seems essential, more so than ‘realities’, which loses this focus. “Actions” seems perhaps best…>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as “substance” >or “assurance” here.I share your amazement at the broad range of usages and renderings of this word. And Carl’s treatment of it seems right on target. I started with the gloss ‘basis’, but finally have come to prefer ‘foundation’, meaning that which stands under and supports something, as per its lexical roots.>So does HUPOSTASIS in Hebrews 11:1 mean substance,>real nature, essence, as in the KJV, or the foundation>or ground of hope, confidence, assurance, as in the>RSV? I was amazed at the difference of opinion on this question that I >found.>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the >question?Because of the chiastic formulation, this definition can and should be understood 3 ways simultaneously:1] As it is written. [a – b – c – b’ – a’]2] a – a’ – b – b’ – c3] c – b – b’ – a – a’So how to translate?? [in order!]1] “Faith is of [things] hoped for, [the] foundation of [their] undertakings, a demonstration of [things] unseen.”2] “Faith is of things hoped for [yet] not seen, [their] foundation [and] demonstration, from [our] actions.”3] “Faith is of actions [their] foundation [and] demonstration of [their] being hoped for [yet] unseen.All three suffer greatly… Hence my 11:1 obsession!So in English, here is a try:”Faith is of actions the foundation of what is hoped for, and the evidence of what is not seen.” [c – b – a – b’ – a’][I have to chuckle at what a Greek would have to think if this were written in this word order in the Koine! He would be scrambling for his syntactical socks as frantically as I am!! Back-translation is a brutal test!]This one still needs some time to simmer on the back burner… I have this nagging idea that there is as well a cause and effect going on here, whereby the evidence arises as a consequence in some way…?George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Acts 2:6Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Kevin L. Barney klbarney at yahoo.com
Fri May 7 14:46:43 EDT 1999

 

Relationship between the Alands Relationship between the Alands I view the structure of this verse as either a simple parallelism (following the RSV):Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seenor as an ABCBA chiasm as you (George) suggest at the beginning of your post. (Or, as is often the case, both.) That the C element (PRAGMATWN) goes with both A elements ties the structure up quite nicely.What was not clear to me was why a chiastic structure would have any bearing at all on the translation (unless one were intentionally trying to preserve the structure in English, something that is often difficult if not impossible to do).Kevin L. BarneyHoffman Estates, Illinoisklbarney at yahoo.com

 

Relationship between the AlandsRelationship between the Alands

Hebrews 11:1 Kevin L. Barney klbarney at yahoo.com
Fri May 7 14:46:43 EDT 1999

 

Relationship between the Alands Relationship between the Alands I view the structure of this verse as either a simple parallelism (following the RSV):Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seenor as an ABCBA chiasm as you (George) suggest at the beginning of your post. (Or, as is often the case, both.) That the C element (PRAGMATWN) goes with both A elements ties the structure up quite nicely.What was not clear to me was why a chiastic structure would have any bearing at all on the translation (unless one were intentionally trying to preserve the structure in English, something that is often difficult if not impossible to do).Kevin L. BarneyHoffman Estates, Illinoisklbarney at yahoo.com

 

Relationship between the AlandsRelationship between the Alands

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat May 8 10:36:43 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an ‘imperative infinitive’ ? Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? >From: “Kevin L. Barney”>I view the structure of this verse as either a simple parallelism >(following the RSV):> >Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,> the conviction of things not seen> >or as an ABCBA chiasm as you (George) suggest at the beginning of your >post. (Or, as is often the case, both.) That the C element (PRAGMATWN) >goes with both A elements ties the structure up quite nicely.Yes, that is exactly what stood out so clearly about this passage. The grammatical structuring is chiastic, forming a parallelism. [But not a chiasm per se, which is a literary term, where the elements are not individual words but sentences, as I am currently understanding the term.]>What was not clear to me was why a chiastic structure would have any >bearing at all on the translation (unless one were intentionally trying to>preserve the structure in English, something that is often difficult if not >impossible to do).Preservation of this structuring in English would be sweet indeed! But I agree that doing so creates unavoidable ambiguity and fails miserably ~ Alas…As to the bearing on translation of this chiastic grammatical structuring, I am but exploring that possibility.Chiasmus itself has great bearing on translation, because it clearly connects elements of syntax that are otherwise ambiguous. [Swine, dogs, tearing open and trampling in the giving and casting of pearls and holy things passage comes vividly to mind.]Can a parallel understanding be applied to grammatical chiastic structuring? [That is a big part of my “11:1 obsession”, as Jim so kindly ‘methought’ unwholesome! :-)]If yes, then the definition centers on and turns around [c], PRAGMATWN, which itself affixes to both parallels, so that the primary sentence becomes ESTIN DE PISTIS PRAGMATWN by chiastic emphasis, and the predicate nominatives are themselves modifiers of PRAGMATWN. This feature makes “things” as its gloss woefully inadequate, utterly losing the central and ‘pragmatic’ emphasis so clearly indicated by the centrality and bifurcation of the term.The point of this passage, on this approach, is that “Faith is of practical actions…” ~ It is above all pragmatic [which is utterly missed in the RSV and I believe all other renditions]. And this pragmatism works out in two directions, forming the two predicate nominatives, each with its associated participle, first one, then the other. Which gives rise in my understanding to the question “Why first this one, then this other one? Would there be a different understanding conveyed if that order were reversed?” Hence my lingering question about implied causlality. [Is there any?]Our non-Greek diagrammaing of this sentence would have to focus on the subject plus the two predicate nominatives, with the rest peripheral to these. My ‘look’ contradicts this approach in favor of the chiastic Greek structuring of the grammatical elements, which ‘turns’ around [or ‘hinges’ upon] the center.George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an ‘imperative infinitive’ ?Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat May 8 10:36:43 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an ‘imperative infinitive’ ? Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? >From: “Kevin L. Barney”>I view the structure of this verse as either a simple parallelism >(following the RSV):> >Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,> the conviction of things not seen> >or as an ABCBA chiasm as you (George) suggest at the beginning of your >post. (Or, as is often the case, both.) That the C element (PRAGMATWN) >goes with both A elements ties the structure up quite nicely.Yes, that is exactly what stood out so clearly about this passage. The grammatical structuring is chiastic, forming a parallelism. [But not a chiasm per se, which is a literary term, where the elements are not individual words but sentences, as I am currently understanding the term.]>What was not clear to me was why a chiastic structure would have any >bearing at all on the translation (unless one were intentionally trying to>preserve the structure in English, something that is often difficult if not >impossible to do).Preservation of this structuring in English would be sweet indeed! But I agree that doing so creates unavoidable ambiguity and fails miserably ~ Alas…As to the bearing on translation of this chiastic grammatical structuring, I am but exploring that possibility.Chiasmus itself has great bearing on translation, because it clearly connects elements of syntax that are otherwise ambiguous. [Swine, dogs, tearing open and trampling in the giving and casting of pearls and holy things passage comes vividly to mind.]Can a parallel understanding be applied to grammatical chiastic structuring? [That is a big part of my “11:1 obsession”, as Jim so kindly ‘methought’ unwholesome! :-)]If yes, then the definition centers on and turns around [c], PRAGMATWN, which itself affixes to both parallels, so that the primary sentence becomes ESTIN DE PISTIS PRAGMATWN by chiastic emphasis, and the predicate nominatives are themselves modifiers of PRAGMATWN. This feature makes “things” as its gloss woefully inadequate, utterly losing the central and ‘pragmatic’ emphasis so clearly indicated by the centrality and bifurcation of the term.The point of this passage, on this approach, is that “Faith is of practical actions…” ~ It is above all pragmatic [which is utterly missed in the RSV and I believe all other renditions]. And this pragmatism works out in two directions, forming the two predicate nominatives, each with its associated participle, first one, then the other. Which gives rise in my understanding to the question “Why first this one, then this other one? Would there be a different understanding conveyed if that order were reversed?” Hence my lingering question about implied causlality. [Is there any?]Our non-Greek diagrammaing of this sentence would have to focus on the subject plus the two predicate nominatives, with the rest peripheral to these. My ‘look’ contradicts this approach in favor of the chiastic Greek structuring of the grammatical elements, which ‘turns’ around [or ‘hinges’ upon] the center.George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an ‘imperative infinitive’ ?Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 8 14:31:49 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Hebrews 11:1 At 7:36 AM -0700 5/8/99, George Blaisdell wrote:>>From: “Kevin L. Barney”> >>I view the structure of this verse as either a simple parallelism>>(following the RSV):>> >>Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,>> the conviction of things not seen>> >>or as an ABCBA chiasm as you (George) suggest at the beginning of your>>post. (Or, as is often the case, both.) That the C element (PRAGMATWN)>>goes with both A elements ties the structure up quite nicely.> >Yes, that is exactly what stood out so clearly about this passage. The>grammatical structuring is chiastic, forming a parallelism. [But not a>chiasm per se, which is a literary term, where the elements are not>individual words but sentences, as I am currently understanding the term.]> >>What was not clear to me was why a chiastic structure would have any>>bearing at all on the translation (unless one were intentionally trying to>>preserve the structure in English, something that is often difficult if not>>impossible to do).> >Preservation of this structuring in English would be sweet indeed! But I>agree that doing so creates unavoidable ambiguity and fails miserably ~>Alas…> >As to the bearing on translation of this chiastic grammatical structuring, I>am but exploring that possibility.> >Chiasmus itself has great bearing on translation, because it clearly>connects elements of syntax that are otherwise ambiguous. [Swine, dogs,>tearing open and trampling in the giving and casting of pearls and holy>things passage comes vividly to mind.]> >Can a parallel understanding be applied to grammatical chiastic structuring?> [That is a big part of my “11:1 obsession”, as Jim so kindly ‘methought’>unwholesome! :-)]> >If yes, then the definition centers on and turns around [c], PRAGMATWN,>which itself affixes to both parallels, so that the primary sentence becomes>ESTIN DE PISTIS PRAGMATWN by chiastic emphasis, and the predicate>nominatives are themselves modifiers of PRAGMATWN. This feature makes>“things” as its gloss woefully inadequate, utterly losing the central and>‘pragmatic’ emphasis so clearly indicated by the centrality and bifurcation>of the term.> >The point of this passage, on this approach, is that “Faith is of practical>actions…” ~ It is above all pragmatic [which is utterly missed in the RSV>and I believe all other renditions]. And this pragmatism works out in two>directions, forming the two predicate nominatives, each with its associated>participle, first one, then the other. Which gives rise in my understanding>to the question “Why first this one, then this other one? Would there be a>different understanding conveyed if that order were reversed?” Hence my>lingering question about implied causlality. [Is there any?]> >Our non-Greek diagrammaing of this sentence would have to focus on the>subject plus the two predicate nominatives, with the rest peripheral to>these. My ‘look’ contradicts this approach in favor of the chiastic Greek>structuring of the grammatical elements, which ‘turns’ around [or ‘hinges’>upon] the center.I’m going to argue partly with you and partly against you on this one,George; I think that there is indeed a chiastic, or better a “ring”construction of the elements ELPIZOMENWN hUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGCOS OUBLEPOMENWN–BUT–I really think that PRAGMATWN depends upon the predicate nominatives foundon either side (hUPOSTASIS and ELEGCOS), and then the passive participles,one of them negated, both qualify PRAGMATWN.But I think it is fundamentally wrong and misleading to take PRAGMATWNdirectly with PISTIS; while PISTIS is a verbal type of noun that might welltake a subjective or objective genitive (in fact we’ve seen the problem,haven’t we, of being sure whether CRISTOU IHSOU is subjective or objectivegenitive in some of the Pauline contexts); nevertheless, I think it’sintolerable that PRAGMATWN should be construed as objective genitive to anoun farther removed from either of those immediately adjacent to it.Consequently I’d consider the “ring” to encompass only the elementsincluded from ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN. And also, although in thisparticular instance I think we do indeed have a deliberate “ring,” I don’tthink you can so readily make this concentric grammatical association thatyou want to make every opportunity it seems to crop up; while there areauthentic enclosures, especially where an article and its noun enclose anattributive element, be it an adjective, a participle, or even an adverb,yet you cannot pick a word and say that it necessarily relates to whatimmediately precedes and follows it as a general rule.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 8 14:31:49 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Hebrews 11:1 At 7:36 AM -0700 5/8/99, George Blaisdell wrote:>>From: “Kevin L. Barney”> >>I view the structure of this verse as either a simple parallelism>>(following the RSV):>> >>Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,>> the conviction of things not seen>> >>or as an ABCBA chiasm as you (George) suggest at the beginning of your>>post. (Or, as is often the case, both.) That the C element (PRAGMATWN)>>goes with both A elements ties the structure up quite nicely.> >Yes, that is exactly what stood out so clearly about this passage. The>grammatical structuring is chiastic, forming a parallelism. [But not a>chiasm per se, which is a literary term, where the elements are not>individual words but sentences, as I am currently understanding the term.]> >>What was not clear to me was why a chiastic structure would have any>>bearing at all on the translation (unless one were intentionally trying to>>preserve the structure in English, something that is often difficult if not>>impossible to do).> >Preservation of this structuring in English would be sweet indeed! But I>agree that doing so creates unavoidable ambiguity and fails miserably ~>Alas…> >As to the bearing on translation of this chiastic grammatical structuring, I>am but exploring that possibility.> >Chiasmus itself has great bearing on translation, because it clearly>connects elements of syntax that are otherwise ambiguous. [Swine, dogs,>tearing open and trampling in the giving and casting of pearls and holy>things passage comes vividly to mind.]> >Can a parallel understanding be applied to grammatical chiastic structuring?> [That is a big part of my “11:1 obsession”, as Jim so kindly ‘methought’>unwholesome! :-)]> >If yes, then the definition centers on and turns around [c], PRAGMATWN,>which itself affixes to both parallels, so that the primary sentence becomes>ESTIN DE PISTIS PRAGMATWN by chiastic emphasis, and the predicate>nominatives are themselves modifiers of PRAGMATWN. This feature makes>“things” as its gloss woefully inadequate, utterly losing the central and>‘pragmatic’ emphasis so clearly indicated by the centrality and bifurcation>of the term.> >The point of this passage, on this approach, is that “Faith is of practical>actions…” ~ It is above all pragmatic [which is utterly missed in the RSV>and I believe all other renditions]. And this pragmatism works out in two>directions, forming the two predicate nominatives, each with its associated>participle, first one, then the other. Which gives rise in my understanding>to the question “Why first this one, then this other one? Would there be a>different understanding conveyed if that order were reversed?” Hence my>lingering question about implied causlality. [Is there any?]> >Our non-Greek diagrammaing of this sentence would have to focus on the>subject plus the two predicate nominatives, with the rest peripheral to>these. My ‘look’ contradicts this approach in favor of the chiastic Greek>structuring of the grammatical elements, which ‘turns’ around [or ‘hinges’>upon] the center.I’m going to argue partly with you and partly against you on this one,George; I think that there is indeed a chiastic, or better a “ring”construction of the elements ELPIZOMENWN hUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGCOS OUBLEPOMENWN–BUT–I really think that PRAGMATWN depends upon the predicate nominatives foundon either side (hUPOSTASIS and ELEGCOS), and then the passive participles,one of them negated, both qualify PRAGMATWN.But I think it is fundamentally wrong and misleading to take PRAGMATWNdirectly with PISTIS; while PISTIS is a verbal type of noun that might welltake a subjective or objective genitive (in fact we’ve seen the problem,haven’t we, of being sure whether CRISTOU IHSOU is subjective or objectivegenitive in some of the Pauline contexts); nevertheless, I think it’sintolerable that PRAGMATWN should be construed as objective genitive to anoun farther removed from either of those immediately adjacent to it.Consequently I’d consider the “ring” to encompass only the elementsincluded from ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN. And also, although in thisparticular instance I think we do indeed have a deliberate “ring,” I don’tthink you can so readily make this concentric grammatical association thatyou want to make every opportunity it seems to crop up; while there areauthentic enclosures, especially where an article and its noun enclose anattributive element, be it an adjective, a participle, or even an adverb,yet you cannot pick a word and say that it necessarily relates to whatimmediately precedes and follows it as a general rule.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat May 8 17:37:47 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 John 5:26 >From: “Carl W. Conrad”[George]As to the bearing on translation of this chiastic grammatical structuring, I am but exploring that possibility.>George;>I think that there is indeed a chiastic, or better a “ring”>construction of the elements ELPIZOMENWN hUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGCOS OU >BLEPOMENWN‘Ring’ has a nice ring to it, Carl… :-)>–BUT–>I really think that PRAGMATWN depends upon the predicate nominatives found>on either side (hUPOSTASIS and ELEGCOS), and then the passive participles,>one of them negated, both qualify PRAGMATWN.Of course they do! The question I am addressing has to do with the word order and its implications for translation, not the grammar per se.>But I think it is fundamentally wrong and misleading to take PRAGMATWN >directly with PISTIS;Grammatically, I agree joyfully ~ The issue here is the import of the center of the ‘ring’, where the ring itself is seen as the ‘predicate nominative’ of PISTIS. Is the center of that ring the center of the meaning? I want to think so…>I think it’s intolerable that PRAGMATWN should be construed as objective >genitive to a>noun farther removed from either of those immediately adjacent to it.Well, I certainly have no tolerance for it! 🙂 d’accord!>Consequently I’d consider the “ring” to encompass only the elements >included from ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN.Precisely!>And also, although in this>particular instance I think we do indeed have a deliberate “ring,” I don’t>think you can so readily make this concentric grammatical association that >you want to make every opportunity it seems to crop up;Well, Carl, you are probably right. On the other hand, how can one learn to swim without entering the water? I do happen to think that concentric thinking is characteristic of the literature of this period, and that we really should approach it that way. It is structures like this that keep feeding this idea…PRAGMATWN, in the context of Hebrews, seems to refer to events foretold, and should probably be understood this way. Thus the central thrust of this passage would be:”Faith is of events foretold, events hoped for yet unseen,their basis and their proof.”The implications of this understanding are startling indeed! [DIANOIA is bypassed, for instance! Off limits, I know!!]So I am still working on it…George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Hebrews 11:1John 5:26

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sat May 8 17:37:47 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 John 5:26 >From: “Carl W. Conrad”[George]As to the bearing on translation of this chiastic grammatical structuring, I am but exploring that possibility.>George;>I think that there is indeed a chiastic, or better a “ring”>construction of the elements ELPIZOMENWN hUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGCOS OU >BLEPOMENWN‘Ring’ has a nice ring to it, Carl… :-)>–BUT–>I really think that PRAGMATWN depends upon the predicate nominatives found>on either side (hUPOSTASIS and ELEGCOS), and then the passive participles,>one of them negated, both qualify PRAGMATWN.Of course they do! The question I am addressing has to do with the word order and its implications for translation, not the grammar per se.>But I think it is fundamentally wrong and misleading to take PRAGMATWN >directly with PISTIS;Grammatically, I agree joyfully ~ The issue here is the import of the center of the ‘ring’, where the ring itself is seen as the ‘predicate nominative’ of PISTIS. Is the center of that ring the center of the meaning? I want to think so…>I think it’s intolerable that PRAGMATWN should be construed as objective >genitive to a>noun farther removed from either of those immediately adjacent to it.Well, I certainly have no tolerance for it! 🙂 d’accord!>Consequently I’d consider the “ring” to encompass only the elements >included from ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN.Precisely!>And also, although in this>particular instance I think we do indeed have a deliberate “ring,” I don’t>think you can so readily make this concentric grammatical association that >you want to make every opportunity it seems to crop up;Well, Carl, you are probably right. On the other hand, how can one learn to swim without entering the water? I do happen to think that concentric thinking is characteristic of the literature of this period, and that we really should approach it that way. It is structures like this that keep feeding this idea…PRAGMATWN, in the context of Hebrews, seems to refer to events foretold, and should probably be understood this way. Thus the central thrust of this passage would be:”Faith is of events foretold, events hoped for yet unseen,their basis and their proof.”The implications of this understanding are startling indeed! [DIANOIA is bypassed, for instance! Off limits, I know!!]So I am still working on it…George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Hebrews 11:1John 5:26

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 9 08:12:33 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? John 5:26 My thanks to George for “making work for me” (see below, s.v. PRAGMATAPARECEIN TINI) and so forcing me to examine ever more closely the syntacticstructure of Hebrews 11:1. The last time I looked at this verse was severalyears ago when assisting a friend preparing her ordination sermon, and Idon’t think I got nearly so deeply into the “guts” of this sentence backthen.At 2:37 PM -0700 5/8/99, George Blaisdell wrote:>>From: “Carl W. Conrad”>>I really think that PRAGMATWN depends upon the predicate nominatives found>>on either side (hUPOSTASIS and ELEGCOS), and then the passive participles,>>one of them negated, both qualify PRAGMATWN.> >[George]> >Of course they do! The question I am addressing has to do with the word>order and its implications for translation, not the grammar per se.> >>But I think it is fundamentally wrong and misleading to take PRAGMATWN>>directly with PISTIS;> >Grammatically, I agree joyfully ~ The issue here is the import of the center>of the ‘ring’, where the ring itself is seen as the ‘predicate nominative’>of PISTIS. Is the center of that ring the center of the meaning? I want to>think so…George, I can see that you WANT to think so. What I CAN’T see is why youshould want to translate in a way that makes the most of word-order butallows the word-order to override the syntax. Because that, it seems to me,is what you do in these lines from your earlier post:[George]>If yes, then the definition centers on and turns around [c], PRAGMATWN,>which itself affixes to both parallels, so that the primary sentence becomes>ESTIN DE PISTIS PRAGMATWN by chiastic emphasis, and the predicate>nominatives are themselves modifiers of PRAGMATWN. This feature makes>“things” as its gloss woefully inadequate, utterly losing the central and>‘pragmatic’ emphasis so clearly indicated by the centrality and bifurcation>of the term.And this is precisely what troubled me: you want to link PRAGMATWN toPISTIS before bringing in the predicate nominates which must link to PISTISbefore PRAGMATWN can come into play. You are so beguiled by the centralposition of PRAGMAATWN in the group (participle/predicatenominative/genitive noun dependent on the predicate nominative/secondpredicate nominative/second {negated} participle) that you want to see itas the key word in the whole 5-expression group and thereby make it theprimary word linked to PISTIS. But there is a simpler explanation, I think,for the position of PRAGMATWN between the two predicate nominatives, andthat is that it is dependent upon BOTH predicate nominatives, which is why,in those versions you are disparaging (KJV, RSV), the word gets translatedtwice, once with each predicate nominative:”Now faith is the substance of THINGS hoped for, the evidence of THINGS notseen.” While I don’t much like “things” for PRAGMATA in these versions(because what the believer hopes for but does not see is hardly so neutralas just any kind of “thing”–and it also seems to me that actions andevents: what God will do–is really the focus of PRAGMATA here.Note too the punctuation in 11:1: While I don’t have NA27 with me here inthe mountains, I do have USB4 and it marks the text with a comma afterhUPOSTASIS; so far as I can see, nobody has suggested that it should comeinstead after PRAGMATWN, and yet that seems to me at least as reasonablebecause I think that PRAGMATWN does indeed belong with both predicatenominatives–ALTHOUGH, if one is going to use “of things” in each instance,then conceivably the genitive plural ELPIZOMENWN might conceivably beunderstood as a neuter plural substantive rather than dependent onPRAGMATWN. My own preference would be to group PRAGMATWN with ELIPIZOMENWNhUPOSTASIS directly and then understand it as implicitly repeated toconstrue with the second predicate nominative and participle in the normalfashion of Greek elliptical expression.At any rate, I think there IS a reason for the central placement ofPRAGMATWN in the five-expression phrase: NOT the highlighting of the wordPRAGMATA but RATHER the positioning of the genitive-plural expressioncentrally between the two predicative nominatives with which it must beconstrued. As I’ve argued before, I believe that the more importantpositions in a Greek clause are beginning and end of the clause rather thanits center.>The point of this passage, on this approach, is that “Faith is of practical>actions…” ~ It is above all pragmatic [which is utterly missed in the RSV>and I believe all other renditions]. And this pragmatism works out in two>directions, forming the two predicate nominatives, each with its associated>participle, first one, then the other. Which gives rise in my understanding>to the question “Why first this one, then this other one? Would there be a>different understanding conveyed if that order were reversed?” Hence my>lingering question about implied causlality. [Is there any?]Perhaps something more needs to be said about the way you are picking upthis PRAGMATWN and running (away) with it. One thing I think you are doingis stretching the meaning of the word PRAGMATA to link it by associationsto the distinctive usage associated with the modern American Pragmatistphilosophy of William James et al. The referent of PRAGMATA here must, Ithink, be the events of the end-time as God works out his will toconsummation: that is what is hoped for but not seen, as the participlesagreeing with PRAGMATWN, ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN, state. I will grantthat PRAGMA, particularly in the plural, PRAGMATA, has a range of senses inancient Greek but all are pretty clearly related to the verb PRATTW fromwhich this object-noun in -MA derives, and in every instance PRAGMATA means”things done/actions accomplished” or “things to be done/actions to beaccomplished.” One of the more common Attic usages is in a sort ofcolloquial idiom PRAGMATA PARECEIN TINI, the nearest American colloquialEnglish for which would be “make work for someone.” The phrase normallymeans, “be a busybody,” “be a nuisance.” But the PRAGMATA referred to inthe genitive plural PRAGMATWN in Heb 11:1 has reference to what God willdo, not to what believers do.>>I think it’s intolerable that PRAGMATWN should be construed as objective>>genitive to a>>noun farther removed from either of those immediately adjacent to it.> >Well, I certainly have no tolerance for it! 🙂 d’accord!Then I must have misunderstood you entirely, George–I certainly had theimpression that you wanted to translate the clause, owing to what you sawas the emphasis, something like “Faith is of actions …” and then go on tobring in the predicate nominatives and the participles separately. Finally,let me suggest my own endeavaor to preserve the grammar and the ‘chiastic’word order of Heb 11:1. This is all the more ‘chiaastic’ because I presentthe translation of PRAGMATWN a second time, so that the structure ofELPIZOMENWN … BLEPOMENWN becomes A-B-C-C’-B’-A’:”This is faith: when we hope, it is our assurance of the events we hope forand of those events it is our touchstone although we do not see them.”Without the repetition of the translation of PRAGMATWN, it becomes:”Here is faith: when we hope, our assurance of the events we hope for andour touchstone, although we do not see them.”Admittedly this is a paraphrase rather than a literal translation, becauseone must insert the links that the target language requires if one is tokeep items in the order in which they appear in the original language.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?John 5:26

Hebrews 11:1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 9 08:12:33 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? John 5:26 My thanks to George for “making work for me” (see below, s.v. PRAGMATAPARECEIN TINI) and so forcing me to examine ever more closely the syntacticstructure of Hebrews 11:1. The last time I looked at this verse was severalyears ago when assisting a friend preparing her ordination sermon, and Idon’t think I got nearly so deeply into the “guts” of this sentence backthen.At 2:37 PM -0700 5/8/99, George Blaisdell wrote:>>From: “Carl W. Conrad”>>I really think that PRAGMATWN depends upon the predicate nominatives found>>on either side (hUPOSTASIS and ELEGCOS), and then the passive participles,>>one of them negated, both qualify PRAGMATWN.> >[George]> >Of course they do! The question I am addressing has to do with the word>order and its implications for translation, not the grammar per se.> >>But I think it is fundamentally wrong and misleading to take PRAGMATWN>>directly with PISTIS;> >Grammatically, I agree joyfully ~ The issue here is the import of the center>of the ‘ring’, where the ring itself is seen as the ‘predicate nominative’>of PISTIS. Is the center of that ring the center of the meaning? I want to>think so…George, I can see that you WANT to think so. What I CAN’T see is why youshould want to translate in a way that makes the most of word-order butallows the word-order to override the syntax. Because that, it seems to me,is what you do in these lines from your earlier post:[George]>If yes, then the definition centers on and turns around [c], PRAGMATWN,>which itself affixes to both parallels, so that the primary sentence becomes>ESTIN DE PISTIS PRAGMATWN by chiastic emphasis, and the predicate>nominatives are themselves modifiers of PRAGMATWN. This feature makes>“things” as its gloss woefully inadequate, utterly losing the central and>‘pragmatic’ emphasis so clearly indicated by the centrality and bifurcation>of the term.And this is precisely what troubled me: you want to link PRAGMATWN toPISTIS before bringing in the predicate nominates which must link to PISTISbefore PRAGMATWN can come into play. You are so beguiled by the centralposition of PRAGMAATWN in the group (participle/predicatenominative/genitive noun dependent on the predicate nominative/secondpredicate nominative/second {negated} participle) that you want to see itas the key word in the whole 5-expression group and thereby make it theprimary word linked to PISTIS. But there is a simpler explanation, I think,for the position of PRAGMATWN between the two predicate nominatives, andthat is that it is dependent upon BOTH predicate nominatives, which is why,in those versions you are disparaging (KJV, RSV), the word gets translatedtwice, once with each predicate nominative:”Now faith is the substance of THINGS hoped for, the evidence of THINGS notseen.” While I don’t much like “things” for PRAGMATA in these versions(because what the believer hopes for but does not see is hardly so neutralas just any kind of “thing”–and it also seems to me that actions andevents: what God will do–is really the focus of PRAGMATA here.Note too the punctuation in 11:1: While I don’t have NA27 with me here inthe mountains, I do have USB4 and it marks the text with a comma afterhUPOSTASIS; so far as I can see, nobody has suggested that it should comeinstead after PRAGMATWN, and yet that seems to me at least as reasonablebecause I think that PRAGMATWN does indeed belong with both predicatenominatives–ALTHOUGH, if one is going to use “of things” in each instance,then conceivably the genitive plural ELPIZOMENWN might conceivably beunderstood as a neuter plural substantive rather than dependent onPRAGMATWN. My own preference would be to group PRAGMATWN with ELIPIZOMENWNhUPOSTASIS directly and then understand it as implicitly repeated toconstrue with the second predicate nominative and participle in the normalfashion of Greek elliptical expression.At any rate, I think there IS a reason for the central placement ofPRAGMATWN in the five-expression phrase: NOT the highlighting of the wordPRAGMATA but RATHER the positioning of the genitive-plural expressioncentrally between the two predicative nominatives with which it must beconstrued. As I’ve argued before, I believe that the more importantpositions in a Greek clause are beginning and end of the clause rather thanits center.>The point of this passage, on this approach, is that “Faith is of practical>actions…” ~ It is above all pragmatic [which is utterly missed in the RSV>and I believe all other renditions]. And this pragmatism works out in two>directions, forming the two predicate nominatives, each with its associated>participle, first one, then the other. Which gives rise in my understanding>to the question “Why first this one, then this other one? Would there be a>different understanding conveyed if that order were reversed?” Hence my>lingering question about implied causlality. [Is there any?]Perhaps something more needs to be said about the way you are picking upthis PRAGMATWN and running (away) with it. One thing I think you are doingis stretching the meaning of the word PRAGMATA to link it by associationsto the distinctive usage associated with the modern American Pragmatistphilosophy of William James et al. The referent of PRAGMATA here must, Ithink, be the events of the end-time as God works out his will toconsummation: that is what is hoped for but not seen, as the participlesagreeing with PRAGMATWN, ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN, state. I will grantthat PRAGMA, particularly in the plural, PRAGMATA, has a range of senses inancient Greek but all are pretty clearly related to the verb PRATTW fromwhich this object-noun in -MA derives, and in every instance PRAGMATA means”things done/actions accomplished” or “things to be done/actions to beaccomplished.” One of the more common Attic usages is in a sort ofcolloquial idiom PRAGMATA PARECEIN TINI, the nearest American colloquialEnglish for which would be “make work for someone.” The phrase normallymeans, “be a busybody,” “be a nuisance.” But the PRAGMATA referred to inthe genitive plural PRAGMATWN in Heb 11:1 has reference to what God willdo, not to what believers do.>>I think it’s intolerable that PRAGMATWN should be construed as objective>>genitive to a>>noun farther removed from either of those immediately adjacent to it.> >Well, I certainly have no tolerance for it! 🙂 d’accord!Then I must have misunderstood you entirely, George–I certainly had theimpression that you wanted to translate the clause, owing to what you sawas the emphasis, something like “Faith is of actions …” and then go on tobring in the predicate nominatives and the participles separately. Finally,let me suggest my own endeavaor to preserve the grammar and the ‘chiastic’word order of Heb 11:1. This is all the more ‘chiaastic’ because I presentthe translation of PRAGMATWN a second time, so that the structure ofELPIZOMENWN … BLEPOMENWN becomes A-B-C-C’-B’-A’:”This is faith: when we hope, it is our assurance of the events we hope forand of those events it is our touchstone although we do not see them.”Without the repetition of the translation of PRAGMATWN, it becomes:”Here is faith: when we hope, our assurance of the events we hope for andour touchstone, although we do not see them.”Admittedly this is a paraphrase rather than a literal translation, becauseone must insert the links that the target language requires if one is tokeep items in the order in which they appear in the original language.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?John 5:26

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 9 12:12:10 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? John 5:26 >From: “Carl W. Conrad”>My thanks to George for “making work for me”Thank-you for your graciousness, Carl ~Little obsessions like this are fairly rare for me, and I trust them when they arrive ~ This one lasted three days ~ Finally resolving yesterday afternoon.As you so carefully note, the key is to understand PRAGMATWN as God’s, not man’s, doings or events, and according to the book of Hebrews itself, the many examples cited are about God foretelling an event, and the faith that kept the faithful elders [Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc] in hopeful expectation of its arrival, in the face of having no physical evidence to go on, each example being a monument to faith.So this little 8 word passage is about these kinds of people and the faith that they enshrine. These are events that God foretells ~ and one way to translate PRAGMATWN *in Hebrews* is “events (foretold)”.The ‘circle of my 11:1 obsession’ closed when I took this idea seriously, because in the genitive it then limits the kind of faith that this passage so artfully portrays. It is about faith that proceeds from God’s foretelling of events, and not about all faith, except by implication.PISTIS DE ESTIN lacks a specifying article, which is provided by PRAGMATWN. It does not read ESTIN DE H PISTIS, or H PISTIS DE ESTIN… No. This is about that faith which has to do with God’s doings ~ Not faith in anything else, as the examples so clearly show.So that PISTIS PRAGMATWN is indeed the central topic of this sentence.>[George]> >If yes, then the definition centers on and >turns around [c], PRAGMATWN,> >which itself affixes to both parallels, >so that the primary sentence >becomes> >ESTIN DE PISTIS PRAGMATWN by chiastic emphasis, and the predicate> >nominatives are themselves modifiers of PRAGMATWN.This is where I failed to understand that the whole chiastic ‘ring’ of 5 words IS the predicate nominative.>And this is precisely what troubled me: you want to link PRAGMATWN to>PISTIS before bringing in the predicate nominates which must link to PISTIS>before PRAGMATWN can come into play. You are so beguiled by the central>position of PRAGMAATWN in the group (participle/predicate>nominative/genitive noun dependent on the predicate nominative/second>predicate nominative/second {negated} participle) that you want to see it>as the key word in the whole 5-expression group and thereby make it the>primary word linked to PISTIS.Yes. As I am understanding this passage, everything TURNS on this word.>But there is a simpler explanation, I think,>for the position of PRAGMATWN between the two predicate nominatives, and>that is that it is dependent upon BOTH predicate nominatives, which is why,>in those versions you are disparaging (KJV, RSV), the word gets translated>twice, once with each predicate nominative:> >“Now faith is the substance of THINGS hoped for, the evidence of THINGS not>seen.”It really does need to be repeated in English, as you say, and requires a very broad and God centered understanding of ‘things’.>While I don’t much like “things” for PRAGMATA in these versions>(because what the believer hopes for but does not see is hardly so neutral>as just any kind of “thing”–and it also seems to me that actions and>events: what God will do–is really the focus of PRAGMATA here.Well, I ran into trouble saying that faith is the substance of the events foretold by God. ‘Assurance’ is less troublesome, but still fails.>Note too the punctuation in 11:1: While I don’t have NA27 with me here in>the mountains, I do have USB4 and it marks the text with a comma after>hUPOSTASIS; so far as I can see, nobody has suggested that it should come>instead after PRAGMATWN, and yet that seems to me at least as reasonableIndeed so…>because I think that PRAGMATWN does indeed belong with both predicate>nominatives–ALTHOUGH, if one is going to use “of things” in each instance,>then conceivably the genitive plural ELPIZOMENWN might conceivably be>understood as a neuter plural substantive rather than dependent on>PRAGMATWN.Yes ~ And BLEPOMENON as well.>My own preference would be to group PRAGMATWN with ELPIZOMENWN>hUPOSTASIS directly and then understand it as implicitly repeated to>construe with the second predicate nominative and participle in the >normal >fashion of Greek elliptical expression.> >At any rate, I think there IS a reason for the central placement of>PRAGMATWN in the five-expression phrase: NOT the highlighting of the word>PRAGMATA but RATHER the positioning of the genitive-plural expression>centrally between the two predicative nominatives with which it must be>construed. As I’ve argued before, I believe that the more important>positions in a Greek clause are beginning and end of the clause rather than>its center.>Perhaps something more needs to be said about the way you are picking up>this PRAGMATWN and running (away) with it.I simply misunderstood it…>The referent of PRAGMATA here must, I>think, be the events of the end-time as God works out his will to>consummation: that is what is hoped for but not seen, as the participles>agreeing with PRAGMATWN, ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN, state.The examples cited by the author of Hebrews are more general than this, and should better be understood as meaning ‘events foretold’, which would include the end times, and might even imply them.> >>I think it’s intolerable that PRAGMATWN should be construed as objective> >>genitive to a> >>noun farther removed from either of those immediately adjacent to it.> >> >Well, I certainly have no tolerance for it! 🙂 d’accord!> >Then I must have misunderstood you entirely, George–No, you didn’t… I mis-spoke. :-(>I certainly had the>impression that you wanted to translate the clause, owing to what you saw>as the emphasis, something like “Faith is of actions …” and then go on to>bring in the predicate nominatives and the participles separately.I do, because of what I am seeing as the highly contextualized formulaic expression following ESTIN DE PISTIS being of itself a whole unit of meaning and forming the predicate nominative of PISTIS.Within this whole, there is structure ~ And I have been exploring the meaning of that structure ~ word order ~ And I agree that the first word [ELPIZOMENWN] is most emphasized because it sets in motion the context of the minds activity of understanding as it is hearing or reading the words. The thought then develops through subsequent word[s] to a turning point ~ In this case, PRAGMATWN ~ and then it works through to its conclusion. [BLEPOMENWN] This is the structuring of the ‘whole’ of a thought, and is common in these texts, although usually not so elegantly done as it is here.>Finally,>let me suggest my own endeavaor to preserve the grammar and the ‘chiastic’>word order of Heb 11:1. This is all the more ‘chiaastic’ because I present>the translation of PRAGMATWN a second time, so that the structure of>ELPIZOMENWN … BLEPOMENWN becomes A-B-C-C’-B’-A’:> >“This is faith: when we hope, it is our assurance of the events we hope for>and of those events it is our touchstone although we do not see them.”> >Without the repetition of the translation of PRAGMATWN, it becomes:> >“Here is faith: when we hope, our assurance of the events we hope for and>our touchstone, although we do not see them.”> >Admittedly this is a paraphrase rather than a literal translation, because>one must insert the links that the target language requires if one is to>keep items in the order in which they appear in the original language.Thank-you Carl. This little passage really does practically require paraphrasing. I offer a more literal rendition that seems to keep the context of Hebrews, rather than offering the broad brush that most versions want to give it as a description of faith per se.”Of events foretold, faith is the basis if their being hoped for, the uncovering of their not being seen.”OR ~ Embedding PRAGMATWN ~”Faith is the basis of events foretold being hoped for, the uncovering of their not being seen.”The first is clearer, because it clearly does not assert that faith is the basis of [God’s] events, but instead is the basis of their being hoped for and expected. As well, faith is what uncovers their not being seen. [Partitive genitive]Neither has the poetic beauty of the KJV ~ Or the elegance of the Greek. I would hope that both have precision of rendering the Greek text insofar as it is possible to do so in English.Thanks again, Carl ~ I’m ready to put this one to bed! It has been a PRAGMATA!!!GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?John 5:26

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 9 12:12:10 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? John 5:26 >From: “Carl W. Conrad”>My thanks to George for “making work for me”Thank-you for your graciousness, Carl ~Little obsessions like this are fairly rare for me, and I trust them when they arrive ~ This one lasted three days ~ Finally resolving yesterday afternoon.As you so carefully note, the key is to understand PRAGMATWN as God’s, not man’s, doings or events, and according to the book of Hebrews itself, the many examples cited are about God foretelling an event, and the faith that kept the faithful elders [Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc] in hopeful expectation of its arrival, in the face of having no physical evidence to go on, each example being a monument to faith.So this little 8 word passage is about these kinds of people and the faith that they enshrine. These are events that God foretells ~ and one way to translate PRAGMATWN *in Hebrews* is “events (foretold)”.The ‘circle of my 11:1 obsession’ closed when I took this idea seriously, because in the genitive it then limits the kind of faith that this passage so artfully portrays. It is about faith that proceeds from God’s foretelling of events, and not about all faith, except by implication.PISTIS DE ESTIN lacks a specifying article, which is provided by PRAGMATWN. It does not read ESTIN DE H PISTIS, or H PISTIS DE ESTIN… No. This is about that faith which has to do with God’s doings ~ Not faith in anything else, as the examples so clearly show.So that PISTIS PRAGMATWN is indeed the central topic of this sentence.>[George]> >If yes, then the definition centers on and >turns around [c], PRAGMATWN,> >which itself affixes to both parallels, >so that the primary sentence >becomes> >ESTIN DE PISTIS PRAGMATWN by chiastic emphasis, and the predicate> >nominatives are themselves modifiers of PRAGMATWN.This is where I failed to understand that the whole chiastic ‘ring’ of 5 words IS the predicate nominative.>And this is precisely what troubled me: you want to link PRAGMATWN to>PISTIS before bringing in the predicate nominates which must link to PISTIS>before PRAGMATWN can come into play. You are so beguiled by the central>position of PRAGMAATWN in the group (participle/predicate>nominative/genitive noun dependent on the predicate nominative/second>predicate nominative/second {negated} participle) that you want to see it>as the key word in the whole 5-expression group and thereby make it the>primary word linked to PISTIS.Yes. As I am understanding this passage, everything TURNS on this word.>But there is a simpler explanation, I think,>for the position of PRAGMATWN between the two predicate nominatives, and>that is that it is dependent upon BOTH predicate nominatives, which is why,>in those versions you are disparaging (KJV, RSV), the word gets translated>twice, once with each predicate nominative:> >“Now faith is the substance of THINGS hoped for, the evidence of THINGS not>seen.”It really does need to be repeated in English, as you say, and requires a very broad and God centered understanding of ‘things’.>While I don’t much like “things” for PRAGMATA in these versions>(because what the believer hopes for but does not see is hardly so neutral>as just any kind of “thing”–and it also seems to me that actions and>events: what God will do–is really the focus of PRAGMATA here.Well, I ran into trouble saying that faith is the substance of the events foretold by God. ‘Assurance’ is less troublesome, but still fails.>Note too the punctuation in 11:1: While I don’t have NA27 with me here in>the mountains, I do have USB4 and it marks the text with a comma after>hUPOSTASIS; so far as I can see, nobody has suggested that it should come>instead after PRAGMATWN, and yet that seems to me at least as reasonableIndeed so…>because I think that PRAGMATWN does indeed belong with both predicate>nominatives–ALTHOUGH, if one is going to use “of things” in each instance,>then conceivably the genitive plural ELPIZOMENWN might conceivably be>understood as a neuter plural substantive rather than dependent on>PRAGMATWN.Yes ~ And BLEPOMENON as well.>My own preference would be to group PRAGMATWN with ELPIZOMENWN>hUPOSTASIS directly and then understand it as implicitly repeated to>construe with the second predicate nominative and participle in the >normal >fashion of Greek elliptical expression.> >At any rate, I think there IS a reason for the central placement of>PRAGMATWN in the five-expression phrase: NOT the highlighting of the word>PRAGMATA but RATHER the positioning of the genitive-plural expression>centrally between the two predicative nominatives with which it must be>construed. As I’ve argued before, I believe that the more important>positions in a Greek clause are beginning and end of the clause rather than>its center.>Perhaps something more needs to be said about the way you are picking up>this PRAGMATWN and running (away) with it.I simply misunderstood it…>The referent of PRAGMATA here must, I>think, be the events of the end-time as God works out his will to>consummation: that is what is hoped for but not seen, as the participles>agreeing with PRAGMATWN, ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN, state.The examples cited by the author of Hebrews are more general than this, and should better be understood as meaning ‘events foretold’, which would include the end times, and might even imply them.> >>I think it’s intolerable that PRAGMATWN should be construed as objective> >>genitive to a> >>noun farther removed from either of those immediately adjacent to it.> >> >Well, I certainly have no tolerance for it! 🙂 d’accord!> >Then I must have misunderstood you entirely, George–No, you didn’t… I mis-spoke. :-(>I certainly had the>impression that you wanted to translate the clause, owing to what you saw>as the emphasis, something like “Faith is of actions …” and then go on to>bring in the predicate nominatives and the participles separately.I do, because of what I am seeing as the highly contextualized formulaic expression following ESTIN DE PISTIS being of itself a whole unit of meaning and forming the predicate nominative of PISTIS.Within this whole, there is structure ~ And I have been exploring the meaning of that structure ~ word order ~ And I agree that the first word [ELPIZOMENWN] is most emphasized because it sets in motion the context of the minds activity of understanding as it is hearing or reading the words. The thought then develops through subsequent word[s] to a turning point ~ In this case, PRAGMATWN ~ and then it works through to its conclusion. [BLEPOMENWN] This is the structuring of the ‘whole’ of a thought, and is common in these texts, although usually not so elegantly done as it is here.>Finally,>let me suggest my own endeavaor to preserve the grammar and the ‘chiastic’>word order of Heb 11:1. This is all the more ‘chiaastic’ because I present>the translation of PRAGMATWN a second time, so that the structure of>ELPIZOMENWN … BLEPOMENWN becomes A-B-C-C’-B’-A’:> >“This is faith: when we hope, it is our assurance of the events we hope for>and of those events it is our touchstone although we do not see them.”> >Without the repetition of the translation of PRAGMATWN, it becomes:> >“Here is faith: when we hope, our assurance of the events we hope for and>our touchstone, although we do not see them.”> >Admittedly this is a paraphrase rather than a literal translation, because>one must insert the links that the target language requires if one is to>keep items in the order in which they appear in the original language.Thank-you Carl. This little passage really does practically require paraphrasing. I offer a more literal rendition that seems to keep the context of Hebrews, rather than offering the broad brush that most versions want to give it as a description of faith per se.”Of events foretold, faith is the basis if their being hoped for, the uncovering of their not being seen.”OR ~ Embedding PRAGMATWN ~”Faith is the basis of events foretold being hoped for, the uncovering of their not being seen.”The first is clearer, because it clearly does not assert that faith is the basis of [God’s] events, but instead is the basis of their being hoped for and expected. As well, faith is what uncovers their not being seen. [Partitive genitive]Neither has the poetic beauty of the KJV ~ Or the elegance of the Greek. I would hope that both have precision of rendering the Greek text insofar as it is possible to do so in English.Thanks again, Carl ~ I’m ready to put this one to bed! It has been a PRAGMATA!!!GeorgeGeorge BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?John 5:26

Hebrews 11:1 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon May 10 10:57:54 EDT 1999

 

Relationship between the Alands FW: virus warning >Thank-you Carl. This little passage really does practically require>paraphrasing. I offer a more literal rendition that seems to keep the>context of Hebrews, rather than offering the broad brush that most versions>want to give it as a description of faith per se.> >“Of events foretold, faith is the basis if their being hoped for, the>uncovering of their not being seen.”> >OR ~ Embedding PRAGMATWN ~> >“Faith is the basis of events foretold being hoped for, the uncovering of>their not being seen.”> >The first is clearer, because it clearly does not assert that faith is the>basis of [God’s] events, but instead is the basis of their being hoped for>and expected. As well, faith is what uncovers their not being seen.>[Partitive genitive]> >Neither has the poetic beauty of the KJV ~ Or the elegance of the Greek. I>would hope that both have precision of rendering the Greek text insofar as>it is possible to do so in English.> >Thanks again, Carl ~ I’m ready to put this one to bed! It has been a>PRAGMATA!!!> >George> George,I wonder if most of trouble with rendering a Greek chiasm/parallelism intoEnglish is we try to use a Greek poetic form on an English sentencestructure. Wouldn’t it be better English (and translation) to use anEnglish poetic structure. That way the reader understands that this iswritten in a different format than ordinary prose and he can appreciatesome of the beauty of the poetic thought (if not the exact structure).Faith is the assurance and proof of reality for which we hope, yet cannot see.You see I have not replicated the parallelism but I folded it back onitself and intertwined it to preserve the chiasm. I am reminded of theUSAToday ad on television, “an economy of words, a wealth of information”.The translators of the KJV were masters of understatement which is why thattranslation continues in popularity.After removing the parallelism I really believe that surety or assurance isintended for hUPOSTASIS rather that substance, if we have faith in God, ourfaith is not His substance (that would be the most arrogant kind ofexistentialism), so I must choose assurance because it is parallel to proofjust as hope is parallel to unseen.I don’t believe PRAGMATWN can be translated as actions or events, itremoves too much passive nature of PRAGMATWN. It sounds as if you’rereading it as PRAXEIS. Matters, facts, truths, realities, stuff, things,but not actions, these things exist before we hope, the assurance in ourheart is all the proof we need that they do indeed exist. I do not believethat this passage is refering in any way to “foretold events”, I don’t seehow you can read that here.Steve—————————————————————————–| Allegro Graphics, Inc. — Allegro Digital Media, Inc. || 4132 Industrial Drive| | Saint Peters, Missouri 63376 || 1-888-819-8166 Toll Free| —————————————————————————–|Specializing in Database-Managed Printing and Webhosting|—————————————————————————–

 

Relationship between the AlandsFW: virus warning

Hebrews 11:1 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon May 10 10:57:54 EDT 1999

 

Relationship between the Alands FW: virus warning >Thank-you Carl. This little passage really does practically require>paraphrasing. I offer a more literal rendition that seems to keep the>context of Hebrews, rather than offering the broad brush that most versions>want to give it as a description of faith per se.> >“Of events foretold, faith is the basis if their being hoped for, the>uncovering of their not being seen.”> >OR ~ Embedding PRAGMATWN ~> >“Faith is the basis of events foretold being hoped for, the uncovering of>their not being seen.”> >The first is clearer, because it clearly does not assert that faith is the>basis of [God’s] events, but instead is the basis of their being hoped for>and expected. As well, faith is what uncovers their not being seen.>[Partitive genitive]> >Neither has the poetic beauty of the KJV ~ Or the elegance of the Greek. I>would hope that both have precision of rendering the Greek text insofar as>it is possible to do so in English.> >Thanks again, Carl ~ I’m ready to put this one to bed! It has been a>PRAGMATA!!!> >George> George,I wonder if most of trouble with rendering a Greek chiasm/parallelism intoEnglish is we try to use a Greek poetic form on an English sentencestructure. Wouldn’t it be better English (and translation) to use anEnglish poetic structure. That way the reader understands that this iswritten in a different format than ordinary prose and he can appreciatesome of the beauty of the poetic thought (if not the exact structure).Faith is the assurance and proof of reality for which we hope, yet cannot see.You see I have not replicated the parallelism but I folded it back onitself and intertwined it to preserve the chiasm. I am reminded of theUSAToday ad on television, “an economy of words, a wealth of information”.The translators of the KJV were masters of understatement which is why thattranslation continues in popularity.After removing the parallelism I really believe that surety or assurance isintended for hUPOSTASIS rather that substance, if we have faith in God, ourfaith is not His substance (that would be the most arrogant kind ofexistentialism), so I must choose assurance because it is parallel to proofjust as hope is parallel to unseen.I don’t believe PRAGMATWN can be translated as actions or events, itremoves too much passive nature of PRAGMATWN. It sounds as if you’rereading it as PRAXEIS. Matters, facts, truths, realities, stuff, things,but not actions, these things exist before we hope, the assurance in ourheart is all the proof we need that they do indeed exist. I do not believethat this passage is refering in any way to “foretold events”, I don’t seehow you can read that here.Steve—————————————————————————–| Allegro Graphics, Inc. — Allegro Digital Media, Inc. || 4132 Industrial Drive| | Saint Peters, Missouri 63376 || 1-888-819-8166 Toll Free| —————————————————————————–|Specializing in Database-Managed Printing and Webhosting|—————————————————————————–

 

Relationship between the AlandsFW: virus warning

Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Mon May 10 13:22:14 EDT 1999

 

FW: virus warning Computer Virus: Apologies >From: Steve Long[George]> >”Of events foretold, faith is the basis of their >being hoped for, the >uncovering of their not being seen.”> >> >OR ~ Embedding PRAGMATWN ~> >> >”Faith is the basis of events foretold being >hoped for, the uncovering >of their not being seen.”> >Neither has the poetic beauty of the KJV ~ >Or the elegance of the Greek. > I> >would hope that both have precision of rendering< <the Greek text insofar as> >it is possible to do so in English.>I wonder if most of trouble with rendering a Greek chiasm/parallelism into>English is we try to use a Greek poetic form on an English sentence >structure.I share your wondering…>Wouldn’t it be better English (and translation) to use an>English poetic structure?We share the same dream!>Faith is the assurance and proof of reality> for which we hope, yet cannot see.>You see I have not replicated the parallelism but I folded it back on>itself and intertwined it to preserve the chiasm.Marvelous! And you don’t really even need the comma. And surely this passage does say that faith is hUPOSTASIS and ELEGCOS.>The translators of the KJV were masters of understatement which is why that>translation continues in popularity.Well, it was written, after all, during a time in the history of the English language that produced its greatest literature. It is indeed, for all its textual problems, still the greatest masterpiece of Bible translation ever produced in English. [imho] No other even comes close! But you better have your NA 27, a Lex. and a grounding in Biblical Greek language alongside when you look at it closely, yes? [Not to mention prayer!]>After removing the parallelism I really believe that surety or assurance is>intended for hUPOSTASIS rather that substance, if we have faith in God, our>faith is not His substance (that would be the most arrogant kind of >existentialism),Exactly on point. ‘Substance’, even though it is a Latin transliteration of hUPOSTASIS, fails due to its very common usage as a gloss for OUSIA.Yet surety or assurance seems to me a step or two ‘up the ladder’ from the root of authorial intention. I could be wrong here, but really do think that ground, foundation, basis, or any gloss that denotes ‘that which stands under’ is to be preferred.>so I must choose assurance because it is parallel to proof>just as hope is parallel to unseen.The parallelism is crucial… ELPIZOMENWN modifies hUPOSTASIS, and OU BLEPOMENWN modifies ELEGCOS, with both related to PRAGMATWN on which they turn. Faith is the basis of hope/expectation, the uncovering of the invisibility of the future.>I don’t believe PRAGMATWN can be translated as actions or events, it >removes too much passive nature of PRAGMATWN. It sounds as if you’re>reading it as PRAXEIS.The MA suffix indicates a noun of result, yes? And the result of an action is an event, yes? Hence event… :-)This word has, I believe, in Hebrews a more narrow meaning, almost a technical one, which comes to light, for instance, in 11:7. “Noah, by faith, being apprised concerning that which was not as yet being observed, and being pious, builds an ark…” The PRAGMATHS here is that of which he is apprised [by God]. That means, to me, he was apprised of an event in the future that was not being seen, and he was apprised ‘by faith’…’being pious’ ~ The enclosers of this snip. Hence the essential role of faith in his apprisal of a future event. [The apprisal not coming from anything of this world.]>I do not believe that this passage is refering in any way to “foretold >events”. I don’t see how you can read that here.Well, right or wrong, perhaps now you can see why I do so.An amazing little 8 words…George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

FW: virus warningComputer Virus: Apologies
Hebrews 11:1 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Mon May 10 13:22:14 EDT 1999

 

FW: virus warning Computer Virus: Apologies >From: Steve Long[George]> >”Of events foretold, faith is the basis of their >being hoped for, the >uncovering of their not being seen.”> >> >OR ~ Embedding PRAGMATWN ~> >> >”Faith is the basis of events foretold being >hoped for, the uncovering >of their not being seen.”> >Neither has the poetic beauty of the KJV ~ >Or the elegance of the Greek. > I> >would hope that both have precision of rendering< <the Greek text insofar as> >it is possible to do so in English.>I wonder if most of trouble with rendering a Greek chiasm/parallelism into>English is we try to use a Greek poetic form on an English sentence >structure.I share your wondering…>Wouldn’t it be better English (and translation) to use an>English poetic structure?We share the same dream!>Faith is the assurance and proof of reality> for which we hope, yet cannot see.>You see I have not replicated the parallelism but I folded it back on>itself and intertwined it to preserve the chiasm.Marvelous! And you don’t really even need the comma. And surely this passage does say that faith is hUPOSTASIS and ELEGCOS.>The translators of the KJV were masters of understatement which is why that>translation continues in popularity.Well, it was written, after all, during a time in the history of the English language that produced its greatest literature. It is indeed, for all its textual problems, still the greatest masterpiece of Bible translation ever produced in English. [imho] No other even comes close! But you better have your NA 27, a Lex. and a grounding in Biblical Greek language alongside when you look at it closely, yes? [Not to mention prayer!]>After removing the parallelism I really believe that surety or assurance is>intended for hUPOSTASIS rather that substance, if we have faith in God, our>faith is not His substance (that would be the most arrogant kind of >existentialism),Exactly on point. ‘Substance’, even though it is a Latin transliteration of hUPOSTASIS, fails due to its very common usage as a gloss for OUSIA.Yet surety or assurance seems to me a step or two ‘up the ladder’ from the root of authorial intention. I could be wrong here, but really do think that ground, foundation, basis, or any gloss that denotes ‘that which stands under’ is to be preferred.>so I must choose assurance because it is parallel to proof>just as hope is parallel to unseen.The parallelism is crucial… ELPIZOMENWN modifies hUPOSTASIS, and OU BLEPOMENWN modifies ELEGCOS, with both related to PRAGMATWN on which they turn. Faith is the basis of hope/expectation, the uncovering of the invisibility of the future.>I don’t believe PRAGMATWN can be translated as actions or events, it >removes too much passive nature of PRAGMATWN. It sounds as if you’re>reading it as PRAXEIS.The MA suffix indicates a noun of result, yes? And the result of an action is an event, yes? Hence event… :-)This word has, I believe, in Hebrews a more narrow meaning, almost a technical one, which comes to light, for instance, in 11:7. “Noah, by faith, being apprised concerning that which was not as yet being observed, and being pious, builds an ark…” The PRAGMATHS here is that of which he is apprised [by God]. That means, to me, he was apprised of an event in the future that was not being seen, and he was apprised ‘by faith’…’being pious’ ~ The enclosers of this snip. Hence the essential role of faith in his apprisal of a future event. [The apprisal not coming from anything of this world.]>I do not believe that this passage is refering in any way to “foretold >events”. I don’t see how you can read that here.Well, right or wrong, perhaps now you can see why I do so.An amazing little 8 words…George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

FW: virus warningComputer Virus: Apologies

Rom 3:22
δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοῦς πιστεύοντας.

This statement can only make good sense if πίστις has different meanings, otherwise the verbal use is tautological. It makes better sense if there is a difference between πίστος ‘faith’ an elusive concept with different possible aspirations (as is evident from Heb 11), and πίστος ‘belief’ a concrete concept (one either believes or one doesn’t).

Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — August 6th, 2016, 11:01 am


Yes, the terminology while not at all new, will be foreign to classical philologists. I first heard about scenarios about 30 years ago over lunch in a mexican restaurant in Issaquah Wash with Randy Groves, a colleague who was at that time the Unix SysAd for artificial intelligence group at the advanced technology center of Boeing Computer Services. I used to make heavy use of advanced technology library. We were not exactly over loaded with work at that time. I think the framework Hoyle is utilizing was already somewhat old thirty years ago.

This is the thought that was running through my mind in reference to Anarthrous πίστις, Heb 11:1.

6.5. The Greek article and Information Status Taxonomy
My analysis of the Greek use of the article can be diagrammed in the form of a grid,
with one axis related to salience, and the other related to information status. The box
Hearer-new/nonsalient is blank, as Hearer-new information is by definition salient:

Salient Nonsalient
Hearer-new −article
Hearer-old −article +article

So lack of the article in Greek marks salience, and must be used for Hearer-new
entities of the category 1 NEW. In contrast, use of the article marks Hearer-old information,
and occurs with every category except 1 NEW, unless the Hearer-old entity is
being explicitly marked as salient. These Hearer-old categories can be thought of as
“known, particular” where “known” means “expected by the speaker to be in the hearer’s
short or long-term memory”, and “particular” means that the speaker expects the hearer
to be able to identity which referent out of the potentially enormous number of
possibilities is being referred to.

Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008

http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/ … lation.pdf

Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — August 3rd, 2016, 12:34 pm


 

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
R. A. Hoyle 2008 has covered this in great detail. Chapter Six, Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008

http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/ … lation.pdf

Thanks, Stirling. While I haven’t worked through how to use all the authors technical terminology, the idea that this is a “new scenario” strikes a chord.

Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — August 3rd, 2016, 10:39 am


R. A. Hoyle 2008 has covered this in great detail. Chapter Six, Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008

http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/ … lation.pdf

Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — August 2nd, 2016, 6:40 pm


 

Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων

What is the effect of having πίστις without the article here? One commentator suggests:

Faith (πίστις). Without the article, indicating that it is treated in its abstract conception, and not merely as Christian faith.

Vincent, M. R. (1887). Word studies in the New Testament (Vol. 4, p. 509). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Vincent is a bit dated, of course, but that thought occurred to me before I started poking around. What bothers me about it is that πίστις is by definition an abstract noun, with or without the article, and abstract nouns may take the article, but don’t thereby change into something more concrete. Thoughts, before I share my own conclusions?

Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — August 2nd, 2016, 12:23 pm


Michael Abernathy » July 26th, 2013, 11:35 am

In Hebrews 11:11 αὐτὴ Σάρρα looks like the subject but δύναμιν εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος ἔλαβεν refers to a man’s part in procreation. The United Bible Society’s textual commentary suggests that καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα στεῖρα should be understood as a Hebraic circumstantial clause. I can accept that but it seems out of character with the excellent Greek used throughout Hebrews.
A second explanation is that the text omitted an iota subscript and it should have been understood as a dative of accompaniment. That makes sense but it calls for a slight emendation in the text.
Any suggestions for interpreting this passage that don’t alter biology, grammar, or the text?Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

 David Lim » July 27th, 2013, 8:12 am

Michael Abernathy wrote:In Hebrews 11:11 αὐτὴ Σάρρα looks like the subject but δύναμιν εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος ἔλαβεν refers to a man’s part in procreation. The United Bible Society’s textual commentary suggests that καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα στεῖρα should be understood as a Hebraic circumstantial clause. I can accept that but it seems out of character with the excellent Greek used throughout Hebrews.
A second explanation is that the text omitted an iota subscript and it should have been understood as a dative of accompaniment. That makes sense but it calls for a slight emendation in the text.
Any suggestions for interpreting this passage that don’t alter biology, grammar, or the text?

What if the verbal idea in “εις καταβολην σπερματος” does not have Sarah as its subject but simply refers to the event itself? For another example, Matt 3:11 records John saying “εγω μεν βαπτιζω υμας εν υδατι εις μετανοιαν”, where the verbal idea in “εις μετανοιαν” does not have John as its subject. Likewise in Heb 11:11, “εις καταβολην σπερματος” could simply denote the reason for the power that Sarah received and not what she could do having it.

Iver Larsen » July 27th, 2013, 10:03 am

Michael Abernathy wrote:In Hebrews 11:11 αὐτὴ Σάρρα looks like the subject but δύναμιν εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος ἔλαβεν refers to a man’s part in procreation. The United Bible Society’s textual commentary suggests that καὶ αὐτὴ Σάρρα στεῖρα should be understood as a Hebraic circumstantial clause. I can accept that but it seems out of character with the excellent Greek used throughout Hebrews.
A second explanation is that the text omitted an iota subscript and it should have been understood as a dative of accompaniment. That makes sense but it calls for a slight emendation in the text.
Any suggestions for interpreting this passage that don’t alter biology, grammar, or the text?Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

Another option is to take καταβολή in the general and basic sense as listed in BDAG:
① the act of laying someth. down, with implication of providing a base for someth., foundation. Readily connected with the idea of founding is the sense beginning

The same can be done to σπέρμα which is commonly used in the Bible simply to mean “descendants, children, posterity”.

Sarah received power to become the founding mother for many descendants. (Compare Gal 4:26-27).