Hebrews 11:3

Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3 Paul F. Evans evans at wilmington.net
Wed Jul 1 12:08:19 EDT 1998

To Interpret or Not To Interpret, That is The question An odd twist or an ingenious translation? List,I need some help!This is a mouthful for a under-achieving Greek student!PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS…I cannot sort our the use of the infinitive KATHRTISQAI. Is it forming a noun phrase with TOUS AIWNAS? In which case I assume that TOUS AIWNAS is the subject of the infinitive. However, how is that to be understood in the larger context with what follows… particularly the infinitive GEGONENAI? A more practical question…How is the articular noun to be understood (TOUS AIWNAS)? Is this some sort of idiomatic expression for the universe?I am totally confused. The Greek of Hebrews is harder than anything else in the NT to me. (Yes I know why, it is some of the best!)Rev. Paul F. EvansPastorWilmington First Pentecostal Holiness ChurchMT. Olive, NCWeb-Page: http://wilmingtonfirst.churches.wilmington.orgE-mail: evans at wilmington.net————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980701/39647887/attachment.html

To Interpret or Not To Interpret, That is The questionAn odd twist or an ingenious translation?

Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Thu Jul 2 00:59:24 EDT 1998

tameion: scatological? To Interpret or Not To Interpret, That is The question-vastaus I’m not sure how much of this I got right, but I’ll send what I came upwith so the Big Greeks can mop up later.At 12:08 PM 7/1/98 -0400, Paul F. Evans wrote: > This is a mouthful for a under-achieving Greek student! > PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS hRHMATI QEOUPISTEI means ‘by faith’ (dative of means). PISTEI NOOUMEN means ‘by faithwe consider’, in the sense of thinking over a matter with care.KATHRTISQAI is an infinitive, as you note. It is also perfect and passive -‘have been created by. hRHMATI is another dative of means – hRHMATI QEOUmeans ‘by the word of God’. KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS hRHMATI QEOU means ‘theuniverse was established by the word of God’. I think that TOUS AIWNAS ismeant in Louw & Nida sense 1.4, which is always plural, in contrast to theEnglish ‘universe’:”Louw & Nida 1.4 (always occurring in the plural): the universe, perhapswith some associated meaning of `eon’ or `age’ in the sense of thetransitory nature of the universe (but this is doubtful in the contexts of#Hebr 1:2 and 11.3)”So don’t let the plural spook you, TOUS AIWNAS just means “the universe”,as you had already guessed.>I cannot sort our the use of the infinitive KATHRTISQAI. Is it forming anoun >phrase with TOUS AIWNAS? In which case I assume that TOUS AIWNAS isthe subject >of the infinitive. Yes, this how I see it as well, as you can tell by my translation above.> However, how is that to be understood in the larger context > with what follows… particularly the infinitive GEGONENAI?The phrase containing GEGONENAI is: EIS TO MH EK FAINOMENWN TO BLEPOMENONGEGONENAI. The construction EIS TO + Verb.Infinitive is the reason thatGEGONENAI comes out infinitive. In this case it expresses result. TOBLEPOMENON means ‘that which is seen’. The phrase ‘EK FAINOMENWN’ is an interesting one – does it mean ‘out ofthat which is visible’, or ‘from appearances’? Is there an implication thatthe material world is less than solid? I’m guessing here with very littlebut a feeling in the gut. Can anybody comment on this phrase?At any rate, the entire phrase EIS TO MH EK FAINOMENWN TO BLEPOMENONGEGONENAI means “so that what is seen did not come from the visible” orperhaps “so that what is seen was not made from appearances”.Hope this helps!Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

tameion: scatological?To Interpret or Not To Interpret, That is The question-vastaus

Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 2 07:59:15 EDT 1998

Mt 28.19 – antecedent of AUTOUS odd twist or an ingenious translation? At 12:59 AM -0400 7/02/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:>I’m not sure how much of this I got right, but I’ll send what I came up>with so the Big Greeks can mop up later.“Big Greeks,” harrumphhh! You’re thinking in terms of avoirdupois?Jonathan has gotten this right, I’d only like to clarify a couple points,chiefly that the distinctly NT Grammars are not consistent in theirhandling of subject-accusative and infinitive (this is one of the few itemsthat AT Robertson errs about, I think personally): the rule is fairlysimple: when an infinitive is used in a subordinate clause, it’s subject isin the accusative UNLESS that subject is identical with the subject of theverb in the main clause upon which that infinitve ultimately depends. Notevery instance of this construction is “indirect discourse” or ORATIOOBLIQUA, but most of them actually are. One can always reformulate theaccusative and infinitive into an English noun clause beginning with “that…” So here: “By faith (PISTEI) we intuit (NOOUMEN) that (inf. +subject-acc. construction) the world (TOUS AIWNAS) stands created(KATHRTISQAI, pf. pass. inf.) by the word of God (hRHMATI QEOU).>At 12:08 PM 7/1/98 -0400, Paul F. Evans wrote:> >> This is a mouthful for a under-achieving Greek student!>> PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS hRHMATI QEOU> >PISTEI means ‘by faith’ (dative of means). PISTEI NOOUMEN means ‘by faith>we consider’, in the sense of thinking over a matter with care.> >KATHRTISQAI is an infinitive, as you note. It is also perfect and passive –>‘have been created by. hRHMATI is another dative of means – hRHMATI QEOU>means ‘by the word of God’. KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS hRHMATI QEOU means ‘the>universe was established by the word of God’. I think that TOUS AIWNAS is>meant in Louw & Nida sense 1.4, which is always plural, in contrast to the>English ‘universe’:> >“Louw & Nida 1.4 (always occurring in the plural): the universe, perhaps>with some associated meaning of `eon’ or `age’ in the sense of the>transitory nature of the universe (but this is doubtful in the contexts of>#Hebr 1:2 and 11.3)”> >So don’t let the plural spook you, TOUS AIWNAS just means “the universe”,>as you had already guessed.> >>I cannot sort our the use of the infinitive KATHRTISQAI. Is it forming a>noun >phrase with TOUS AIWNAS? In which case I assume that TOUS AIWNAS is>the subject >of the infinitive.> >Yes, this how I see it as well, as you can tell by my translation above.> >> However, how is that to be understood in the larger context>> with what follows… particularly the infinitive GEGONENAI?> >The phrase containing GEGONENAI is: EIS TO MH EK FAINOMENWN TO BLEPOMENON>GEGONENAI. The construction EIS TO + Verb.Infinitive is the reason that>GEGONENAI comes out infinitive. In this case it expresses result. TO>BLEPOMENON means ‘that which is seen’.I would expand this explanation in accordance with what I wrote above–forclarification’s sake. The articular infinitive phrase here is anotherinstance of infinitive + subject-accusative, and the whole construction canagain be converted into English as a noun clause introduced by “that …”;since the articular infinitive phrase is object of EIS, it is equivalent toa acc.+inf. phrase introduced by hWSTE. I’d convert it: “so that that whichis seen has created existence out of things not appearing.” I’m probablyoverprecise in my conversion of perfect infinitives as statives–it maywell be that KATHRTISQAI and GEGONENAI are more or less equivalent toaorist passives KATARTISQHNAI and GENNHQHNAI, but until I’m quite satisfiedonthis matter, I’d prefer to translate the perfects with a stative senserather than as equivalent to aorists.>The phrase ‘EK FAINOMENWN’ is an interesting one – does it mean ‘out of>that which is visible’, or ‘from appearances’? Is there an implication that>the material world is less than solid? I’m guessing here with very little>but a feeling in the gut. Can anybody comment on this phrase?I think that this is the author of Hebrews using a synonym for the sake ofrhetorical inconcinnity (avoidance of precise antithesis): EK FAINOMENWNreally means the same thing as EK BLEPOMENWN, so that the sense is: “sothat what is seen has its created existence from things that are notvisible.”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/

Mt 28.19 – antecedent of AUTOUSodd twist or an ingenious translation?

Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu Jul 2 21:23:41 EDT 1998

follow up follow up On Wed 1 Jul 98 (12:08:19), evans at wilmington.net wrote:> This is a mouthful for a under-achieving Greek student! Dear Paul: Don’t sell yourself short! You’re doing just fine.> PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… by faith we understand to have been arranged the worlds> I cannot sort out the use of the infinitive KATHRTISQAI. Is it forming> a noun phrase with TOUS AIWNAS? In which case I assume that TOUS> AIWNAS is the subject of the infinitive. You’re right: and it is the Perfect Passive Infinitive of KATARTIZW to put in order, arrange, complete, perfect. TOUS AIWNAS is the subject of the infinitive, in the Accusative+Infinitive construction. Look up “Accusative Infinitive” in the index or Table of Contents of your Greek Grammar.> However, how is that to be> understood in the larger context with what follows… particularly the> infinitive GEGONENAI? EIS plus the accusative and Infinitive indicates Purpose; as if it were hINA plus the Subjunctive. GEGONENAI is the 2nd-Perfect Active Infinitive of GINOMAI: to have become, to have been, to have been made. EIS TO MH EK FAINOMENWN TO BLEPOMENON GEGONENAI. so that not of things visible the things seeable have been made. In other words, creation /ex nihilo/.> A more practical question… *More* practical??? > How is the articular noun to be understood (TOUS AIWNAS)? Is this some> sort of idiomatic expression for the universe? Yes, basically. The Creation is the outward expression of the Creator, and is as eternal as He is, or wants it to remain. An AIWN is an Age, or an Age-long creature such as the Universe. It can be of Time and Eternity, or of Space and Eternity. Compare the Doxology hWi H DOXA EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN, AMHN (Galatians 1:5, and similarly elsewhere). Latin /cui est gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen/. [Disclaimer: I don’t mean Pantheism!]> I am totally confused. The Greek of Hebrews is harder than anything> else in the NT to me. (Yes I know why, it is some of the best!) Stick at it! No gains without pains! CAIREIN Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

follow upfollow up

Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Thu Jul 2 23:49:33 EDT 1998

follow up Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3 At 07:59 AM 7/2/98 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>At 12:59 AM -0400 7/02/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:>>The phrase ‘EK FAINOMENWN’ is an interesting one – does it mean ‘out of>>that which is visible’, or ‘from appearances’? Is there an implication that>>the material world is less than solid? I’m guessing here with very little>>but a feeling in the gut. Can anybody comment on this phrase?> >I think that this is the author of Hebrews using a synonym for the sake of>rhetorical inconcinnity (avoidance of precise antithesis): EK FAINOMENWN>really means the same thing as EK BLEPOMENWN, so that the sense is: “so>that what is seen has its created existence from things that are not>visible.” I think the reason that I was thinking in terms of “appearances” is that itreminds me of some passages in Plato, where FAINW is used in a middleparticiple to refer to appearances. Is there a relationship between thisuse in Hebrews and Plato’s use of the verb?Plato loves this verb, and often uses it to describe appearances. Note thathe uses it more often than any other author on Perseus:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/persfreq?lookup=fai/nw&lang=Greek&corpus=2.0&author=&formentry=0You can see his uses here:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/wordsearch?author=plat.&lookup=fai/nw&lang=Greek&corpus=2.0I also note that the verb FAINW only appears as a middle three times in theGNT. In Matthew 2:7, Herod asked the Magi about the time of of theappearing of the star (TON CRONON TOU FAINOMENOU ASTEROS). In James 4:14,we are told that we do not know what our life will be like tomorrow, for weare but a mist that appears for a little while (ATMIS GAR ESTE hH PROSOLIGON FAINOMENH). In James 4:14 and the Hebrews 11:3 passage, it felt tome that there may have been a Platonic tone to the use of the word. Is itlikely that these authors were influenced by Plato?FAINETAI!Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

follow upRe. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3

Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 3 07:01:44 EDT 1998

Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3 Hebrews 11:6b At 11:49 PM -0400 7/02/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:>At 07:59 AM 7/2/98 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>>At 12:59 AM -0400 7/02/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:> >>>The phrase ‘EK FAINOMENWN’ is an interesting one – does it mean ‘out of>>>that which is visible’, or ‘from appearances’? Is there an implication that>>>the material world is less than solid? I’m guessing here with very little>>>but a feeling in the gut. Can anybody comment on this phrase?>> >>I think that this is the author of Hebrews using a synonym for the sake of>>rhetorical inconcinnity (avoidance of precise antithesis): EK FAINOMENWN>>really means the same thing as EK BLEPOMENWN, so that the sense is: “so>>that what is seen has its created existence from things that are not>>visible.”> >I think the reason that I was thinking in terms of “appearances” is that it>reminds me of some passages in Plato, where FAINW is used in a middle>participle to refer to appearances. Is there a relationship between this>use in Hebrews and Plato’s use of the verb?> >Plato loves this verb, and often uses it to describe appearances. Note that>he uses it more often than any other author on Perseus:> >http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/persfreq?lookup=fai/nw&lang=Greek&corpu>s=2.0&author=&formentry=0> >You can see his uses here:> >http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/wordsearch?author=plat.&lookup=fai/nw&l>ang=Greek&corpus=2.0> >I also note that the verb FAINW only appears as a middle three times in the>GNT. In Matthew 2:7, Herod asked the Magi about the time of of the>appearing of the star (TON CRONON TOU FAINOMENOU ASTEROS). In James 4:14,>we are told that we do not know what our life will be like tomorrow, for we>are but a mist that appears for a little while (ATMIS GAR ESTE hH PROS>OLIGON FAINOMENH). In James 4:14 and the Hebrews 11:3 passage, it felt to>me that there may have been a Platonic tone to the use of the word. Is it>likely that these authors were influenced by Plato?> >FAINETAI!This is the verb, in fact, on the basis of which I first came to realizethat the so-called aorist passive -H- and -QH- forms originated, and, inmany instances, continued to be understood simply an intransitive 3rdaorists, even if they were construed with hUPO + genitive, as in:TAUTA EFANH hUPO TWN CALDAIWN “These things came to light throughthe efforts of Chaldaeans” = “These things were discovered by theChaldaeans.”It is a fascinating verb in any case. In classical Attic it means “bring tolight,” “show,” “reveal” in the active, “come to light,” “become visible,””appear” in the middle-reflexive. Moreover, it functions like DOKEW,particularly in the 3rd person: i.e. with a supplementary PARTICIPLE it iswhat is objectively evident that is underscored: FAINETAI WN, DOKEI WN =”he/she/it evidently (manifestly) IS …”, while with a supplementaryINFINITIVE it is what is only superficially evident that is underscored:FAINETAI EINAI, DOKEI EINAI = “he/she/it SEEMS to be (but may not, in fact,be what he/she/it seems to be …)”In the above-cited passages in Matthew and James, I think the sense of themiddle FAINOMAI is simply “be evident, be visible” without any implicationsof “seeming” or “mere appearance.” Note that both are present (i.e.progressive) participles: “the time of the star’s appearance” (which islimited temporally), and “a breathing that is evident, manifest for (only)a little time.” The phrase in Hebrews is indeed more Platonic in conception:EIS TO MH EK FAINOMENWN TO BLEPOMENON GEGONENAINo doubt GEGONENAI is a reference to creation, even though the word referssimply to “coming into being.” I think we have a play on words here in thetwo participles, both of which are used substantivally. I think one mightargue that the author of Hebrews envisions an ex-nihilo creation here,although the phrasing suggests it rather than implies it: “so that what isseen has its existence (derivative) from things that do not manifestthemselves.” This is the language of the early Ionian physicists, Thales,Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc., but I do think that Platonic dualism is alsoclearly implicit in the author of Hebrews (whoever he or she may havebeen). The more classical (and Platonic too) antithesis of the sort youhave in mind, Jonathan, is DOXA/ALHQEIA, which, if translated with a sortof hyper-etymological intensity might be “(mere” seeming/unveiledness.”That is: DOXA is what appears, but what may not necessarily actually BEwhat it appears to be, while ALHQEIA is what has objective reality, even ifit is not manifest to the naked eye.I don’t know whether this answers all your questions, Jonathan. But if not,perhaps we can talk it over face-to-face this weekend (God willing). I willmake this much of a confident assertion: the author of Hebrews prettyevidently (FAINETAI + ptc.) thinks in Platonic-dualistic terms about aworld characterized by GENESIS KAI FQORA opposed to a world of permanentreality up above.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/

Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS… Heb. 11:3Hebrews 11:6b