[B-Greek] Re: "Forever" and "to be" (was "Re: Hebrews 1:8")

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 17:48:58 EDT 2004


Forwarded for: "robert newman" <rob at designceramics.co.uk>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: "Forever" and "to be" (was "Re: Hebrews 1:8")
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 21:25:08 +0100

At 3:40 PM +0100 6/30/04, robert newman wrote:
>I have two questions.
>
>1) Buduhn in his book Truth in Translation has a chapter on this verse.
>He gives some powerful arguments, is this one sound?
>
>He writes "Furthermore, there is no other example in the Bible where
>the expression "Forever" stands alone as a predicate phrase with the
>verb "to be" as it would if the sentence were read "Your throne is
>forever." "Forever" always functions as a phrase complementing either
>an action verb, or a predicate noun or pronoun."
>
>Is there really no other example in the Bible? And what about other
>literature?

>Carl Conrad
The assertion cited above gives the impression that BeDuhn is unaware of
the existential function of the verb EINAI in Greek and assumes that all
instances of the verb are copulative; it's hard to believe that any serious
student/scholar of Greek would be ignorant of this distinction and of the
usage of EINAI as an existential verb, and BeDuhn may conceivably have
taught Greek at Northern Arizona University (although I can find no
indication of that in his CV at
<http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/%7Ejdb8/jason-cv1.htm>http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/%7Ejdb8/jason-cv1.htm);
I wonder too whether he is familiar with the Greek text of Parmenides,
whose argument as a whole depends upon the extential sense of EIMI. BDAG
gives the existential sense as #1 under EIMI and lists other predicate
usages of EIMI under ##3a,4,5,6,7.
>

RN
This response surprises me. Beduhn does not deny the existential function
of the verb EINAI, or imply that, his argument simply relates to use of
"forever" with the verb "to be". I find this response somewhat distasteful
toward professor BeDuhn. Is it justified?

>CC
I suppose that before responding to this question I ought to read the
chapter in question in Jason DeBuhn's book, but I have done a fairly quick
search of the most common NT Greek phrase conveyed as "forever"--EIS TON
AIWNA/EIS TOUS AIWNAS and it doesn't seem to me that the cited statement is
valid at all.
Of these I shall only deal with those instances that seem to me to be
relevant to BeDuhn's assertion and particularly it's relevance to Heb 1:8).
Forever" with a predicate noun and implicit verb "to be
Heb. 5:6 and 7:17 (citation of Ps 110:4) SU hIEREUS EIS TON AIWNA KATA THN
TAXIN MELCISEDEK Heb. 13:8 IHSOUS CRISTOS ECQES KAI SHMERON hO AUTOS KAI
EIS TOUS AIWNAS
If I have rightly understand what BeDuhn is claiming this is the only
standard usage of the phrase translated "forever" in the Bible or GNT.
>

RN
BeDuhn's description of the usage of the phrase translated "forever" is
very wide indeed, namely ""Forever" always functions as a phrase
complementing either an action verb, or a predicate noun or pronoun."
Frankly the claim that these 3 verses represent the only usage that BeDuhn
allows is very hard to believe.
Can Carl give an example of "Forever" standing alone as a predicate phrase
with the verb "to be"?

>CC
Used with predicate accusative:
Heb. 7:28 ... hO LOGOS DE THS ORKWMOSIAS THS META TON NOMON (KAQISTHSIN)
hUION EIS TON AIWNA TETELESMENON. I suppose this is equivalent to the
expressions above with predicate word and "to be": TELEIOS ESTAI EIS TON
AIWNA -- and I wouldn't argue against that view.
>

RN "forever" here seems to complement TETELESNEMON

>CC
A couple other expressions may perhaps be categorized as "action verb(s)
complemented by the phase meaning "forever." I'd be somewhat hesitant about
calling these "action verbs" inasmuch as they are intransitives:
ANABAINEIN, BASILEUIN, the passive BASANIZESQAI:
Intransitive: "rise/ascend"-I guess this would be called an "action verb":
(2x) Rev. 14:11, 19:3 hO KAPNOS ... EIS AIWNAS AIWNWN ANABAINEI
Intransitive: "reign"-I suppose it could be argued that these are the
equivalent of predicate noun with verb "be", e.g. BASILEUS ESTAI EIS TON
AIWNA or BASILEIS ESONTAI EIS TON AIWNA Luke 1:33 BASILEUSEI ... EIS TOUS
AIWNAS Rev. 22:5 KAI BASILEUSOUSIN EIS TUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN (said of the
redeemed)
Intransitive/passive: "they will undergo torture continuously ..."-I guess
this might be called an "action verb": Rev. 20:10 KAI BASANISQHSONTAI
hHMERAS KAI NUKTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN \
>

RN Whilst its interesting and not unuseful to look at these examples of the
use of "forever" with the these verbs 'to reign' 'to ascend' and 'to be
tormented' they are not examples of "Forever" standing alone as a predicate
phrase with the verb "to be".

>CC
In my opinion, the verbs ZHN and MENEIN are practically synonymous with
EINAI in its existential sense; there are several instances of these verbs
in the GNT:
ZHN:
John 6:51 EAN TIS FAGHi EK TOUTOU TOU ARTOU ZHSEI EIS TON AIWNA Rev. 1:18
KAI hO ZWN, KAI EGENOMHN NEKROS KAI IDOU ZWN EIMI EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN
AIWNWN Although is might be argued that ZWN is predicate word here, I'd
prefer to say that ZWN EIMI is simply periphrastic for ZW. Rev. 4:9, 4:10,
10:6 ... TWi ZWNTI EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN Rev. 15:7 TOU QEOU TOU ZWNTOS
EIS TOUS AIWNAAS TWN AIWNWN
MENEIN:
John 8:35 (2x MENEI EIS TON AIWNA)
John 12:34 hO CRISTOS MENEI EIS TON AIWNA
2Cor. 9:9 hH DIKAIOSUNH AUTOU MENEI EIS TON AIWNA
Heb. 7:24 DIA TO MENEIN AUTON EIS TON AIWNA ...
1Pet. 1:25 TO DE hRHMA KURIOU MENEI EIS TON AIWNA
1John 2:17 hO DE POIWN TO QELHMA TOU QEOU MENEI EIS TON AIWNA
>

RN
Again whilst it's interesting and not unuseful to look at the use of
"forever" with the verbs 'live' and 'remain' which may be "practically
synonymous" with the verb "to be" these are not examples of "Forever"
standing alone as a predicate phrase with the verb "to be".

>CC
Existential EINAI; several of these are found in doxologies, and if it is
argued that EINAI doesn't appear in these, it is neverthless clearly
implied, and in one instance (1 Peter 4:11 it is explicit); it's worth
noting, moreover, that an existential ESTI is understood to be implicit in
the conventional understanding of our text in question, Heb 1:8 with hO
QEOS understood as vocative rather than as predicate noun--even though ESTI
isn't expressed (the ellipsis is more common than not):
>

RN
In the alternative understanding the implicit verb is taken as being
between the two nouns (Throne and God)

>CC
Doxological formulae:
Gal. 1:5, Heb 13;231 hWi hH DOXA EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN Eph. 3:21 AUTWi
hH DOXA ... EIS PASAS TAS GENEAS TU AIWNOS TWN AIWNWN Phil. 4:20 TWi DE
QEWi KAI PATRI hHMWN hH DOXA EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN 1Tim. 1:17 TWi DE
BASILEI TWN AIWNWN, AFQARTWi AORATWi MONWi QEWi, TIMH KAI DOXA EIS TOUS
AIWNAS AIWNWN 1Pet. 4:11 ... DIA IHSOU CRISTOU, hWi ESTIN hH DOXA KAI TO
KRATOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN 1Pet. 5:11 AUTWi TO KRATOS EIS TOUS
AIWNAS Rev. 5:13 ... TWi KAQHMENWi EPI TWi QRONWi KAI TWi ARNIWi hH EULOGIA
KAI hH TIMH KAI hH DOXA KAI TO KRATOS EIS TOUS AIWNAAS TWN AIWNWN
>

RN
Again no examples of what is preferred at Heb 1:8. No examples of "Forever"
standing alone as a predicate phrase with the verb "to be". In all but one
of these examples the verb is implicit and so I guess it could be argued
that its position is different to how normally understood, but not
convincingly.

>CC
Finally, there are two clear instances of existential EINAI used with EIS
TON AIWNA:
John 14:16 hINA MEQ' hUMWN EIS TON AIWNA Hi ...  intransitive:  "be" in
existential sense, nor is that altered by the presence of the adverbial
phrase MEQ' hUMWN: 2John 1:2 DIA THN ALHQEIAN THN MENOUSAN EN hHMIN KAI
MEQ' hHMWN ESTAI EIS TON AIWNA Although the syntax of the clause MEQ' hHMWN
ESTAI EIS TON AIWNA is highly irregular, the meaning is not in question; in
fact here it is clear that MENEIN is understood to be equivalent to EINAI .
>

RN
John 14:6 Whilst the phrase MEQ' hUMWN doesn't alter the existential sense,
it's very presence means that "forever" doesn't stand alone with the verb
"to be". Does not "forever" here complement the pronoun? "to be with you
forever". Also 2 John 2 "it will be with us forever". While these later
verses are close they still do not compare exactly with the commonly
preferred reading of Heb 1:8. Where we have
'throne (is) forever'
BeDuhn claims there is no other example of '*something* (is)/is forever'
like we have with the most common understanding of the verse.
His claim seems to hold true.

>CC
My conclusion: BeDuhn's assertion, if it has been accurately cited and in
sufficient context in Robert Newman's message of 3:40 PM +0100 6/30/04,
simply will not stand as an objection to the conventional translations of
Heb 1:8, wherein hO QEOS is understood to be functionally equivalent to a
vocative expression and the subject hO QRONOS SOU is construed with an
implicit existential ESTI qualified by the adverbial expression EIS TON
AIWNA: "Your throne, O God, is forever." I concur, on the other hand, with
Rolf Furuli's assertion that it is grammatically possible to understand hO
QEOS as predicate noun in this text and that one's preference will depend
upon one's theological orientation, while I would nevertheless insist that
BeDuhn's claim that the conventional reading of the text is grammatically
invalid just won't hold water.
>

RN
I accurately cited Beduhn's argument but I gave no indication of his
conclusions(apart from the argument itself). BeDuhn did not claim that the
conventional reading of the text is invalid! In his book he said (with my
emphasis) that "BOTH TRANSLATIONS ARE POSSIBLE, SO NONE OF THE TRANSLATIONS
WE ARE COMPARING CAN BE REJECTED AS INACCURATE. We cannot settle the debate
with certainty. But which translation is more probable?
First on the basis of linguistics, ho theos is more likely to mean "god" as
it does hundreds of times throughout the New Testament, than "O God," a
meaning it has in only three other places in the New Testament.
Furthermore, there is no other example in the Bible where the expression
"Forever" stands alone as a predicate phrase with the
verb "to be" as it would if the sentence were read "Your throne is
forever." "Forever" always functions as a phrase complementing either
an action verb, or a predicate noun or pronoun. Moreover, there is no other
way to say "God is your throne" than the way Hebrews 1:8 reads. There is,
however, another way to say "Your throne, O God," namely, by using the
direct address (vocative) form thee rather than the subject (nominative)
form ho theos. The test of asking "Is there some other way the author could
have expressed x if he or she meant x?" is an important one in translation
and interpretation."
He goes on to discuss literary context.
BeDuhn commends the NRSV, TEV and NWT for informing their readers that
there are two ways the verse can and has been translated.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but it seems that BeDuhn's argument stands.
It does not demand the rendering "God is your throne forever" but it is
certainly suggestive of it.

Robert Newman
Essex England



More information about the B-Greek mailing list