[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Mon Jul 26 23:11:34 EDT 2010
[] Marcion on Matthew 5:17 [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI[THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN METAQESIS hWS PEPOIMHENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA.Now my question on METAQESISA brief quotation from BDAG on METAQESIS – p. 639(1) removal to another place Heb 11:5(2) change, transformation Heb 7:12; 12:27Why have most translations chosen ‘removal’ on this text? Is it amatter of exegesis?Oun Kwon.
[] Marcion on Matthew 5:17[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jul 27 04:44:39 EDT 2010
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS [] PARESTIKTAI On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI> [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN METAQESIS hWS PEPOIMHENWN,> hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA.More accurately:Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA. > > Now my question on METAQESIS> > A brief quotation from BDAG on METAQESIS – p. 639> (1) removal to another place Heb 11:5> (2) change, transformation Heb 7:12; 12:27> > Why have most translations chosen ‘removal’ on this text? Is it a> matter of exegesis?I think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what hashappened to TA SALEUOMENA, i.e., METAQESIN, and theexpected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/ongoing presence (MEINHi) of TA MH SALEUOMENA.What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS[] PARESTIKTAI
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Wed Jul 28 18:10:54 EDT 2010
[] PARESTIKTAI [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> > On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> > > Heb 12:27<clipped>> More accurately:> Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN> METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA.> >> > Now my question on METAQESIS> >> > A brief quotation from BDAG on METAQESIS – p. 639> > (1) removal to another place Heb 11:5> > (2) change, transformation Heb 7:12; 12:27> >> > Why have most translations chosen ‘removal’ on this text? Is it a> > matter of exegesis?> > I think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has> happened to TA SALEUOMENA, i.e., METAQESIN, and the> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of TA MH SALEUOMENA.> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.> > > Carl W. Conrad(Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)As I am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as alexicographical question:Why does BDAG cite this Heb 12:27 as an example of (2)?Source New Testament by Ann Nyland renders it as ‘transference’, whichitself is not understandable. She puts a footnote there, saying <not’removal’>.Oun Kwon.
[] PARESTIKTAI[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Jul 28 19:04:26 EDT 2010
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>> >> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:>> >>> Heb 12:27> <clipped>>> More accurately:>> Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN>> METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA.>>> >>> Now my question on METAQESIS>>> >>> A brief quotation from BDAG on METAQESIS – p. 639>>> (1) removal to another place Heb 11:5>>> (2) change, transformation Heb 7:12; 12:27>>> >>> Why have most translations chosen ‘removal’ on this text? Is it a>>> matter of exegesis?>> >> I think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has>> happened to TA SALEUOMENA, i.e., METAQESIN, and the>> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/>> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of TA MH SALEUOMENA.>> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.>> >> >> Carl W. Conrad> > (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)> > As I am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a> lexicographical question:> > Why does BDAG cite this Heb 12:27 as an example of (2)?> > Source New Testament by Ann Nyland renders it as ‘transference’, which> itself is not understandable. She puts a footnote there, saying <not> ‘removal’>.I can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still be;perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can I explain BDAG’s listing of this under the secondsense. METAQESIS should mean most fundamentallly “transposition” or rearrangementof elements into a new order — or perhaps, in this instance, a restoration to the orderof things as created, if that’s the sense of hWS PEPOIHMENWN.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 28 22:27:13 EDT 2010
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS [] Learning Greek kills English… I have a good deal of respect for Ann’s judgment, but I think she is in error here. It does not seem to comport with the subsequent portion of the verse which she translates as “so that the things which cannot be rocked will remain” thus implying that the things which can be “rocked” will by implication be said to be removed when it uses the term μετάθεσιν METAQESIN. Westcott notes here that one should compare 11.5 which reads Πίστει Ἑνὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο διότι μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός. πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως μεμαρτύρηται εὐαρεστηκέναι τῷ θεῷ·PISTEI ENWX METETEQH TOU MH IDEIN QANATON, KAI OUX hHURISKETO DIOTI METEQHKEN AUTON hO QEOS. PRO GAR THS METAQESEWS MEMARTURHTAI hEURESTHKENAI TWi QEWi. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>Cc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Wed, July 28, 2010 4:04:26 PMSubject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 METAQESISOn Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>> >> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:>> >>> Heb 12:27> <clipped>>> More accurately:>> Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN>> METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA.>>> >>> Now my question on METAQESIS>>> >>> A brief quotation from BDAG on METAQESIS – p. 639>>> (1) removal to another place Heb 11:5>>> (2) change, transformation Heb 7:12; 12:27>>> >>> Why have most translations chosen ‘removal’ on this text? Is it a>>> matter of exegesis?>> >> I think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has>> happened to TA SALEUOMENA, i.e., METAQESIN, and the>> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/>> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of TA MH SALEUOMENA.>> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.>> >> >> Carl W. Conrad> > (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)> > As I am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a> lexicographical question:> > Why does BDAG cite this Heb 12:27 as an example of (2)?> > Source New Testament by Ann Nyland renders it as ‘transference’, which> itself is not understandable. She puts a footnote there, saying <not> ‘removal’>.I can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still be;perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can I explain BDAG’s listing of this under the secondsense. METAQESIS should mean most fundamentallly “transposition” or rearrangementof elements into a new order — or perhaps, in this instance, a restoration to the orderof things as created, if that’s the sense of hWS PEPOIHMENWN.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS[] Learning Greek kills English…
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS Tom Moore tom at katabiblon.com
Fri Jul 30 01:50:29 EDT 2010
[] Putting Greek (and Hebrew) into a web page [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS I would agree with Ann Nyland that METAQESIS in Heb. 12:27 is not ‘removal.’ Rather I would say it is ‘displacement’ (more specifically, knocking down or felling).METATIQHMI seems generally to mean to move someone or something out of its established place. In the case of landmarks, to move them out of their rightful place (Dt. 27:17, Prv. 23:10, Hos. 5:10); in the case of Jacob, to transport his body from Egypt to be buried in Shechem (Acts 7:16); in the case of Enoch, to move him from wherever he was on earth to a new place (Heb. 11:5).In Heb. 12:27, I would think that the things that are being shaken, rather than being removed or taken away or made to disappear, are–like man-made structures in an earthquake (hWS PEPOIHMENWN)–knocked down, felled, and otherwise turned to rubble, which is a form of moving or displacing them from their established places. Though for a less-literal translation of THN TWN SALEOUMENWN METAQESIN in Heb. 12:27, I like “the impermanence of the things being shaken.”Regards,Tom Moore> ——-Original Message——-> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS> Sent: Jul 29 ’10 02:27> > I have a good deal of respect for Ann’s judgment, but I think she is in error> here. It does not seem to comport with the subsequent portion of the verse> which she translates as “so that the things which cannot be rocked will remain”> thus implying that the things which can be “rocked” will by implication be said> to be removed when it uses the term μετάθεσιν METAQESIN. Westcott notes here> that one should compare 11.5 which reads> > > Πίστει Ἑνὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο διότι μετέθηκεν> αὐτὸν ὁ θεός. πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως μεμαρτύρηται εὐαρεστηκέναι τῷ θεῷ·> PISTEI ENWX METETEQH TOU MH IDEIN QANATON, KAI OUX hHURISKETO DIOTI METEQHKEN> AUTON hO QEOS. PRO GAR THS METAQESEWS MEMARTURHTAI hEURESTHKENAI TWi QEWi.> > > george> gfsomsel> > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > > ________________________________> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>> To: Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 4:04:26 PM> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS> > > On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> >>> >> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> >>> >>> Heb 12:27> > <clipped>> >> More accurately:> >> Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN> >> METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA.> >>>> >>> Now my question on METAQESIS> >>>> >>> A brief quotation from BDAG on METAQESIS – p. 639> >>> (1) removal to another place Heb 11:5> >>> (2) change, transformation Heb 7:12; 12:27> >>>> >>> Why have most translations chosen ‘removal’ on this text? Is it a> >>> matter of exegesis?> >>> >> I think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has> >> happened to TA SALEUOMENA, i.e., METAQESIN, and the> >> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/> >> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of TA MH SALEUOMENA.> >> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.> >>> >>> >> Carl W. Conrad> >> > (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)> >> > As I am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a> > lexicographical question:> >> > Why does BDAG cite this Heb 12:27 as an example of (2)?> >> > Source New Testament by Ann Nyland renders it as ‘transference’, which> > itself is not understandable. She puts a footnote there, saying <not> > ‘removal’>.> > I can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still> be;> perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can I explain BDAG’s listing of this under the> second> sense. METAQESIS should mean most fundamentallly “transposition” or> rearrangement> of elements into a new order — or perhaps, in this instance, a restoration to> the order> of things as created, if that’s the sense of hWS PEPOIHMENWN.> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > > —> 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/>
[] Putting Greek (and Hebrew) into a web page[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Jul 30 07:33:11 EDT 2010
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:50 AM, Tom Moore wrote:> I would agree with Ann Nyland that METAQESIS in Heb. 12:27 is not ‘removal.’ Rather I would say it is ‘displacement’ (more specifically, knocking down or felling).> > METATIQHMI seems generally to mean to move someone or something out of its established place. In the case of landmarks, to move them out of their rightful place (Dt. 27:17, Prv. 23:10, Hos. 5:10); in the case of Jacob, to transport his body from Egypt to be buried in Shechem (Acts 7:16); in the case of Enoch, to move him from wherever he was on earth to a new place (Heb. 11:5).> > In Heb. 12:27, I would think that the things that are being shaken, rather than being removed or taken away or made to disappear, are–like man-made structures in an earthquake (hWS PEPOIHMENWN)–knocked down, felled, and otherwise turned to rubble, which is a form of moving or displacing them from their established places. > > Though for a less-literal translation of THN TWN SALEOUMENWN METAQESIN in Heb. 12:27, I like “the impermanence of the things being shaken.”For what it’s worth, I note that this query was first broached by Oun several days ago; I have to confess that I am far less confident at this point that I understand at all what the text is indicating in the phrasing TWN SALEUOMENWN hWS PEPOIHMENWN METAQESIN. The hINA clause is clear enough.Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA. Shall we suppose that METAQESIS here means “reduction to rubble,” i.e. “destruction”? If we understand (TA) PEPOIHMENA as buildings constructed laboriously, then perhaps it is right to understand METAQESIS simply as “deconstruction” or “destruction.” Or might METAQESIS be the “reconstitution” of what has been destroyed? In 7:12 METAQESIS NOMOU is “amendment” of a law — but here it hardly makes sense to understand METAQESIS in a positive sense of “reconstruction.” Perhaps “wreckage” might describe the upheaval and collapse of building materials in an earthquake, but it seems to me that there’s generally a positive connotation to METATIQHMI and METAQESIS. Ann Nygren’s preference for “transference” still does not make any real sense to me. I note too that SALEUOMENWN and SALEUOMENA are present participles, not verbal adjectives like SALEUTA — so it’s not a matter of “things that are subject to wrecking” and “things that cannot be wrecked” — but rather it’s “things that quake” and “things that don’t quake.” Certainly the antithesis is of what is impermanent and what is permanent. We may very well understand TWN SALEUOMENWN hWS PEPOIHMENWN METAQESIN as a phrase meaning “the impermanence of man-made creations” but that is actually an extended paraphrase of the sense of the Greek text. I remain unsatisfied with our efforts to attach a suitable meaning to METAQESIS in this text.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> ——-Original Message——->> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>>> To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS>> Sent: Jul 29 ’10 02:27>> >> I have a good deal of respect for Ann’s judgment, but I think she is in error>> here. It does not seem to comport with the subsequent portion of the verse>> which she translates as “so that the things which cannot be rocked will remain”>> thus implying that the things which can be “rocked” will by implication be said>> to be removed when it uses the term μετάθεσιν METAQESIN. Westcott notes here>> that one should compare 11.5 which reads>> >> >> Πίστει Ἑνὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο διότι μετέθηκεν>> αὐτὸν ὁ θεός. πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως μεμαρτύρηται εὐαρεστηκέναι τῷ θεῷ·>> PISTEI ENWX METETEQH TOU MH IDEIN QANATON, KAI OUX hHURISKETO DIOTI METEQHKEN>> AUTON hO QEOS. PRO GAR THS METAQESEWS MEMARTURHTAI hEURESTHKENAI TWi QEWi.>> >> >> george>> gfsomsel>> >> >> … search for truth, hear truth,>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,>> defend the truth till death.>> >> >> – Jan Hus>> _________>> >> >> >> >> ________________________________>> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>>> To: Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 4:04:26 PM>> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS>> >> >> On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:>> >>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:>>>> >>>>> Heb 12:27>>> <clipped>>>>> More accurately:>>>> Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN>>>> METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA.>>>>> >>>>> Now my question on METAQESIS>>>>> >>>>> A brief quotation from BDAG on METAQESIS – p. 639>>>>> (1) removal to another place Heb 11:5>>>>> (2) change, transformation Heb 7:12; 12:27>>>>> >>>>> Why have most translations chosen ‘removal’ on this text? Is it a>>>>> matter of exegesis?>>>> >>>> I think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has>>>> happened to TA SALEUOMENA, i.e., METAQESIN, and the>>>> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/>>>> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of TA MH SALEUOMENA.>>>> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.>>>> >>>> >>>> Carl W. Conrad>>> >>> (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)>>> >>> As I am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a>>> lexicographical question:>>> >>> Why does BDAG cite this Heb 12:27 as an example of (2)?>>> >>> Source New Testament by Ann Nyland renders it as ‘transference’, which>>> itself is not understandable. She puts a footnote there, saying <not>>> ‘removal’>.>> >> I can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still>> be;>> perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can I explain BDAG’s listing of this under the>> second>> sense. METAQESIS should mean most fundamentallly “transposition” or>> rearrangement>> of elements into a new order — or perhaps, in this instance, a restoration to>> the order>> of things as created, if that’s the sense of hWS PEPOIHMENWN.
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Jul 30 09:54:08 EDT 2010
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS [] Putting Greek (and Hebrew) into a web page (KennethLitwak) On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:> > On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:50 AM, Tom Moore wrote:> >> I would agree with Ann Nyland that METAQESIS in Heb. 12:27 is not ‘removal.’ Rather I would say it is ‘displacement’ (more specifically, knocking down or felling).>> >> METATIQHMI seems generally to mean to move someone or something out of its established place. In the case of landmarks, to move them out of their rightful place (Dt. 27:17, Prv. 23:10, Hos. 5:10); in the case of Jacob, to transport his body from Egypt to be buried in Shechem (Acts 7:16); in the case of Enoch, to move him from wherever he was on earth to a new place (Heb. 11:5).>> >> In Heb. 12:27, I would think that the things that are being shaken, rather than being removed or taken away or made to disappear, are–like man-made structures in an earthquake (hWS PEPOIHMENWN)–knocked down, felled, and otherwise turned to rubble, which is a form of moving or displacing them from their established places. >> >> Though for a less-literal translation of THN TWN SALEOUMENWN METAQESIN in Heb. 12:27, I like “the impermanence of the things being shaken.”> > For what it’s worth, I note that this query was first broached by Oun several days ago; I have to confess that I am far less confident at this point that I understand at all what the text is indicating in the phrasing TWN SALEUOMENWN hWS PEPOIHMENWN METAQESIN. The hINA clause is clear enough.> > Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN > METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA. > > Shall we suppose that METAQESIS here means “reduction to rubble,” i.e. “destruction”? If we understand (TA) PEPOIHMENA as buildings constructed laboriously, then perhaps it is right to understand METAQESIS simply as “deconstruction” or “destruction.” Or might METAQESIS be the “reconstitution” of what has been destroyed? In 7:12 METAQESIS NOMOU is “amendment” of a law — but here it hardly makes sense to understand METAQESIS in a positive sense of “reconstruction.” Perhaps “wreckage” might describe the upheaval and collapse of building materials in an earthquake, but it seems to me that there’s generally a positive connotation to METATIQHMI and METAQESIS. Ann Nygren’sApologies! That should be Ann Nyland’s> preference for “transference” still does not make any real sense to me. I note too that SALEUOMENWN and SALEUOMENA are present participles, not verbal adjectives like SALEUTA — so it’s not a matter of “things that are subject to wrecking” and “things that cannot be wrecked” — but rather it’s “things that quake” and “things that don’t quake.” Certainly the antithesis is of what is impermanent and what is permanent. We may very well understand TWN SALEUOMENWN hWS PEPOIHMENWN METAQESIN as a phrase meaning “the impermanence of man-made creations” but that is actually an extended paraphrase of the sense of the Greek text. I remain unsatisfied with our efforts to attach a suitable meaning to METAQESIS in this text.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> >>> ——-Original Message——->>> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>>>> To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>>>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS>>> Sent: Jul 29 ’10 02:27>>> >>> I have a good deal of respect for Ann’s judgment, but I think she is in error>>> here. It does not seem to comport with the subsequent portion of the verse>>> which she translates as “so that the things which cannot be rocked will remain”>>> thus implying that the things which can be “rocked” will by implication be said>>> to be removed when it uses the term μετάθεσιν METAQESIN. Westcott notes here>>> that one should compare 11.5 which reads>>> >>> >>> Πίστει Ἑνὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο διότι μετέθηκεν>>> αὐτὸν ὁ θεός. πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως μεμαρτύρηται εὐαρεστηκέναι τῷ θεῷ·>>> PISTEI ENWX METETEQH TOU MH IDEIN QANATON, KAI OUX hHURISKETO DIOTI METEQHKEN>>> AUTON hO QEOS. PRO GAR THS METAQESEWS MEMARTURHTAI hEURESTHKENAI TWi QEWi.>>> >>> >>> george>>> gfsomsel>>> >>> >>> … search for truth, hear truth,>>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,>>> defend the truth till death.>>> >>> >>> – Jan Hus>>> _________>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________>>> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>>>> To: Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>>>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 4:04:26 PM>>> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS>>> >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:>>>>> >>>>>> Heb 12:27>>>> <clipped>>>>>> More accurately:>>>>> Heb 12:27 TO DE ETI hAPAX DHLOI [THN] TWN SALEUOMENWN>>>>> METAQESIN hWS PEPOIHMENWN, hINA MEINHi TA MH SALEUOMENA.>>>>>> >>>>>> Now my question on METAQESIS>>>>>> >>>>>> A brief quotation from BDAG on METAQESIS – p. 639>>>>>> (1) removal to another place Heb 11:5>>>>>> (2) change, transformation Heb 7:12; 12:27>>>>>> >>>>>> Why have most translations chosen ‘removal’ on this text? Is it a>>>>>> matter of exegesis?>>>>> >>>>> I think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has>>>>> happened to TA SALEUOMENA, i.e., METAQESIN, and the>>>>> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/>>>>> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of TA MH SALEUOMENA.>>>>> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carl W. Conrad>>>> >>>> (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)>>>> >>>> As I am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a>>>> lexicographical question:>>>> >>>> Why does BDAG cite this Heb 12:27 as an example of (2)?>>>> >>>> Source New Testament by Ann Nyland renders it as ‘transference’, which>>>> itself is not understandable. She puts a footnote there, saying <not>>>> ‘removal’>.>>> >>> I can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still>>> be;>>> perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can I explain BDAG’s listing of this under the>>> second>>> sense. METAQESIS should mean most fundamentallly “transposition” or>>> rearrangement>>> of elements into a new order — or perhaps, in this instance, a restoration to>>> the order>>> of things as created, if that’s the sense of hWS PEPOIHMENWN.> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Heb 12:27 METAQESIS[] Putting Greek (and Hebrew) into a web page (KennethLitwak)