[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Mon Jul 26 23:11:34 εδτ 2010
[] Marcion on Matthew 5:17 [] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι[θν] των σαλευομενων μεταθεσισ hWS πεποιμηενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα.Now my question on μεταθεσισα brief quotation from βδαγ on μεταθεσισ – 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 μεταθεσισ
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jul 27 04:44:39 εδτ 2010
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ [] παρεστικται On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι> [θν] των σαλευομενων μεταθεσισ hWS πεποιμηενων,> hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα.More accurately:Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα. > > Now my question on μεταθεσισ> > α brief quotation from βδαγ on μεταθεσισ – 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?ι think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what hashappened to τα σαλευομενα, i.e., μεταθεσιν, and theexpected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/ongoing presence (MEINHi) of τα μη σαλευομενα.What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ[] παρεστικται
Wed Jul 28 18:10:54 εδτ 2010
[] παρεστικται [] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 αμ, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> > On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> > > Heb 12:27<clipped>> More accurately:> Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων> μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα.> >> > Now my question on μεταθεσισ> >> > α brief quotation from βδαγ on μεταθεσισ – 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?> > ι think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has> happened to τα σαλευομενα, i.e., μεταθεσιν, and the> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of τα μη σαλευομενα.> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.> > > Carl ω. Conrad(Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)As ι am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as alexicographical question:Why does βδαγ 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.
[] παρεστικται[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ
Wed Jul 28 19:04:26 εδτ 2010
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ [] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 αμ, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>> >> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:>> >>> Heb 12:27> <clipped>>> More accurately:>> Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων>> μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα.>>> >>> Now my question on μεταθεσισ>>> >>> α brief quotation from βδαγ on μεταθεσισ – 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?>> >> ι think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has>> happened to τα σαλευομενα, i.e., μεταθεσιν, and the>> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/>> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of τα μη σαλευομενα.>> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.>> >> >> Carl ω. Conrad> > (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)> > As ι am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a> lexicographical question:> > Why does βδαγ 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’>.ι can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still be;perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can ι explain βδαγ‘s listing of this under the secondsense. μεταθεσισ 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 πεποιημενων.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ George φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 28 22:27:13 εδτ 2010
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ [] Learning Greek kills English… ι have a good deal of respect for Ann’s judgment, but ι 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 μεταθεσιν. 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·πιστει ενωχ μετετεθη του μη ιδειν θανατον, και ουχ hHURISKETO διοτι μετεθηκεν αυτον hO θεοσ. προ γαρ θσ μεταθεσεωσ μεμαρτυῥται 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 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 αμ, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>> >> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:>> >>> Heb 12:27> <clipped>>> More accurately:>> Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων>> μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα.>>> >>> Now my question on μεταθεσισ>>> >>> α brief quotation from βδαγ on μεταθεσισ – 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?>> >> ι think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has>> happened to τα σαλευομενα, i.e., μεταθεσιν, and the>> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/>> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of τα μη σαλευομενα.>> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.>> >> >> Carl ω. Conrad> > (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)> > As ι am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a> lexicographical question:> > Why does βδαγ 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’>.ι can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still be;perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can ι explain βδαγ‘s listing of this under the secondsense. μεταθεσισ 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 πεποιημενων.Carl ω. 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 μεταθεσισ[] Learning Greek kills English…
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ Tom Moore tom at katabiblon.com
Fri Jul 30 01:50:29 εδτ 2010
[] Putting Greek (and Hebrew) into a web page [] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ ι would agree with Ann Nyland that μεταθεσισ in Heb. 12:27 is not ‘removal.’ Rather ι would say it is ‘displacement’ (more specifically, knocking down or felling).μετατιθημι 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, ι 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 πεποιημενων)–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 θν των σαλεουμενων μεταθεσιν in Heb. 12:27, ι like “the impermanence of the things being shaken.”Regards,Tom Moore> ——-Original Message——-> From: George φ 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 μεταθεσισ> Sent: Jul 29 ’10 02:27> > ι have a good deal of respect for Ann’s judgment, but ι 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 μεταθεσιν. 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·> πιστει ενωχ μετετεθη του μη ιδειν θανατον, και ουχ hHURISKETO διοτι μετεθηκεν> αυτον hO θεοσ. προ γαρ θσ μεταθεσεωσ μεμαρτυῥται 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 πμ> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ> > > On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 αμ, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> >>> >> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> >>> >>> Heb 12:27> > <clipped>> >> More accurately:> >> Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων> >> μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα.> >>>> >>> Now my question on μεταθεσισ> >>>> >>> α brief quotation from βδαγ on μεταθεσισ – 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?> >>> >> ι think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has> >> happened to τα σαλευομενα, i.e., μεταθεσιν, and the> >> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/> >> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of τα μη σαλευομενα.> >> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.> >>> >>> >> Carl ω. Conrad> >> > (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)> >> > As ι am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a> > lexicographical question:> >> > Why does βδαγ 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’>.> > ι can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still> be;> perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can ι explain βδαγ‘s listing of this under the> second> sense. μεταθεσισ 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 πεποιημενων.> > > Carl ω. 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 μεταθεσισ
Fri Jul 30 07:33:11 εδτ 2010
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ [] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:50 αμ, Tom Moore wrote:> ι would agree with Ann Nyland that μεταθεσισ in Heb. 12:27 is not ‘removal.’ Rather ι would say it is ‘displacement’ (more specifically, knocking down or felling).> > μετατιθημι 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, ι 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 πεποιημενων)–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 θν των σαλεουμενων μεταθεσιν in Heb. 12:27, ι like “the impermanence of the things being shaken.”For what it’s worth, ι note that this query was first broached by Oun several days ago; ι have to confess that ι am far less confident at this point that ι understand at all what the text is indicating in the phrasing των σαλευομενων hWS πεποιημενων μεταθεσιν. The hINA clause is clear enough.Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα. Shall we suppose that μεταθεσισ here means “reduction to rubble,” i.e. “destruction”? If we understand (τα) πεποιημενα as buildings constructed laboriously, then perhaps it is right to understand μεταθεσισ simply as “deconstruction” or “destruction.” Or might μεταθεσισ be the “reconstitution” of what has been destroyed? In 7:12 μεταθεσισ νομου is “amendment” of a law — but here it hardly makes sense to understand μεταθεσισ 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 μετατιθημι and μεταθεσισ. Ann Nygren’s preference for “transference” still does not make any real sense to me. ι note too that σαλευομενων and σαλευομενα are present participles, not verbal adjectives like σαλευτα — 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 των σαλευομενων hWS πεποιημενων μεταθεσιν as a phrase meaning “the impermanence of man-made creations” but that is actually an extended paraphrase of the sense of the Greek text. ι remain unsatisfied with our efforts to attach a suitable meaning to μεταθεσισ in this text.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> ——-Original Message——->> From: George φ 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 μεταθεσισ>> Sent: Jul 29 ’10 02:27>> >> ι have a good deal of respect for Ann’s judgment, but ι 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 μεταθεσιν. 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·>> πιστει ενωχ μετετεθη του μη ιδειν θανατον, και ουχ hHURISKETO διοτι μετεθηκεν>> αυτον hO θεοσ. προ γαρ θσ μεταθεσεωσ μεμαρτυῥται 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 πμ>> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ>> >> >> On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:>> >>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 αμ, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:>>>> >>>>> Heb 12:27>>> <clipped>>>>> More accurately:>>>> Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων>>>> μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα.>>>>> >>>>> Now my question on μεταθεσισ>>>>> >>>>> α brief quotation from βδαγ on μεταθεσισ – 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?>>>> >>>> ι think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has>>>> happened to τα σαλευομενα, i.e., μεταθεσιν, and the>>>> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/>>>> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of τα μη σαλευομενα.>>>> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.>>>> >>>> >>>> Carl ω. Conrad>>> >>> (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)>>> >>> As ι am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a>>> lexicographical question:>>> >>> Why does βδαγ 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’>.>> >> ι can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still>> be;>> perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can ι explain βδαγ‘s listing of this under the>> second>> sense. μεταθεσισ 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 πεποιημενων.
Fri Jul 30 09:54:08 εδτ 2010
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ [] Putting Greek (and Hebrew) into a web page (KennethLitwak) On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:33 αμ, Carl Conrad wrote:> > On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:50 αμ, Tom Moore wrote:> >> ι would agree with Ann Nyland that μεταθεσισ in Heb. 12:27 is not ‘removal.’ Rather ι would say it is ‘displacement’ (more specifically, knocking down or felling).>> >> μετατιθημι 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, ι 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 πεποιημενων)–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 θν των σαλεουμενων μεταθεσιν in Heb. 12:27, ι like “the impermanence of the things being shaken.”> > For what it’s worth, ι note that this query was first broached by Oun several days ago; ι have to confess that ι am far less confident at this point that ι understand at all what the text is indicating in the phrasing των σαλευομενων hWS πεποιημενων μεταθεσιν. The hINA clause is clear enough.> > Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων > μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα. > > Shall we suppose that μεταθεσισ here means “reduction to rubble,” i.e. “destruction”? If we understand (τα) πεποιημενα as buildings constructed laboriously, then perhaps it is right to understand μεταθεσισ simply as “deconstruction” or “destruction.” Or might μεταθεσισ be the “reconstitution” of what has been destroyed? In 7:12 μεταθεσισ νομου is “amendment” of a law — but here it hardly makes sense to understand μεταθεσισ 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 μετατιθημι and μεταθεσισ. Ann Nygren’sApologies! That should be Ann Nyland’s> preference for “transference” still does not make any real sense to me. ι note too that σαλευομενων and σαλευομενα are present participles, not verbal adjectives like σαλευτα — 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 των σαλευομενων hWS πεποιημενων μεταθεσιν as a phrase meaning “the impermanence of man-made creations” but that is actually an extended paraphrase of the sense of the Greek text. ι remain unsatisfied with our efforts to attach a suitable meaning to μεταθεσισ in this text.> > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> >>> ——-Original Message——->>> From: George φ 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 μεταθεσισ>>> Sent: Jul 29 ’10 02:27>>> >>> ι have a good deal of respect for Ann’s judgment, but ι 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 μεταθεσιν. 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·>>> πιστει ενωχ μετετεθη του μη ιδειν θανατον, και ουχ hHURISKETO διοτι μετεθηκεν>>> αυτον hO θεοσ. προ γαρ θσ μεταθεσεωσ μεμαρτυῥται 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 πμ>>> Subject: Re: [] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ>>> >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:10 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:44 αμ, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:>>>>> >>>>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:11 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:>>>>> >>>>>> Heb 12:27>>>> <clipped>>>>>> More accurately:>>>>> Heb 12:27 το δε ετι hAPAX δηλοι [θν] των σαλευομενων>>>>> μεταθεσιν hWS πεποιημενων, hINA MEINHi τα μη σαλευομενα.>>>>>> >>>>>> Now my question on μεταθεσισ>>>>>> >>>>>> α brief quotation from βδαγ on μεταθεσισ – 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?>>>>> >>>>> ι think the answer lies in the self-evident contrast between what has>>>>> happened to τα σαλευομενα, i.e., μεταθεσιν, and the>>>>> expected result of the one last shaking of the earth: the abiding/>>>>> ongoing presence (MEINHi) of τα μη σαλευομενα.>>>>> What is not shaken abides, what is shaken is removed.>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carl ω. Conrad>>>> >>>> (Sorry for a typo in copying the transliterated text.)>>>> >>>> As ι am down with you, my question needs to be flipped around as a>>>> lexicographical question:>>>> >>>> Why does βδαγ 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’>.>>> >>> ι can’t speak for Ann Nyland; at one point she was a list-member and may still>>> be;>>> perhaps she’ll respond. Nor can ι explain βδαγ‘s listing of this under the>>> second>>> sense. μεταθεσισ 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 πεποιημενων.> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Heb 12:27 μεταθεσισ[] Putting Greek (and Hebrew) into a web page (KennethLitwak)