[B-Greek] Hebrews 1:1-2 EN
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Dec 15 15:32:35 EST 2007
HEB. 1:1 POLUMERWS KAI POLUTROPWS PALAI hO QEOS LALHSAS TOIS PATRASIN
EN TOIS PROFHTAIS 2 EP' ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWN ELALHSEN hHMIN EN
hUIWi, hON EQHKEN KLHRONOMON PANTWN, DI' hOU KAI EPOIHSEN TOUS AIWNAS:
Several assumptions are made here which should be questioned.
The assumption that two EN + dative constituents in a parallel
construction must be semantically identical.
EN + dative is very common. Danker (BDAG) places instrumental EN +
dative and personal agency under different headings at the same level
whereas BDF 219.1 lists personal agency under the heading of
instrumental. Westcott appears (??) to take it as a locative, but
Ellingworth and Koester call it as an instrumental. Quibbling over
this in regard to Hebrews 1:1-2 gets us nowhere.
The inferential ambiguity of EN + dative in the greek text isn't
translatable because no target language will have exactly the same
semantic mapping for a prepositional phrase. When you translated it
you end up damaging the goods. This ambiguity is a very important
aspect of the semantics of the original. Translating it via
paraphrase reduces the ambiguity. Any attempt at a so called literal
translation will skew the ambiguity. You end up with damaged goods in
both cases. Take this question up in a translation forum.
What makes this parallel construction powerful in greek is precisely
that fact that it cannot be semantically pinned down. An attempt to
prove that EN TOIS PROFHTAIS is semantically identical to EN hUIWi is
bound to fail because the argument of Hebrews is decidedly against
it. Hebrews is a book filled with comparisons of the old and the new
and the stress is on the difference between the old and the new.
Cognitive approaches to semantics recognize the importance of
inferential ambiguity. The classic approaches to exegesis which
attempt to remove ambiguity by forcing us to choose one of several
alternatives are based on the code model for language. Ambiguity is a
positive and beneficial attribute of texts not just a problem to be
solved and removed.
Elizabeth Kline
On Dec 15, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Alderman, Jim wrote:
> The parallel structure of the first two verses of Hebrews is quite
> striking, especially if viewed in a diagram. Here is a sentence
> tree of
> these verses, albeit using Marshall's literal translation, which I am
> using with a study group:
> http://www.freewebs.com/jlaindy/Hebrews%20Mind%20Map/index.html.
>
>
>
> My question is regarding the two phrases "by the prophets" (EN TOIS
> PROFHTAIS) and "by a son" (EN hUIWi). Both PROFHTAIS and hUIWi are
> dative. EN would literally be translated "in" but more naturally "by"
> for readability in this context. In a previous message
> (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2004-July/030716.html), a
> case was made for requiring EN to "bear the sense 'by means of' or
> 'through the instrumentality of.' "
>
>
>
> With both occurrences of EN being in the same sentence, both with the
> dative and especially considering the parallel construction, could
> there
> be any reasonable argument made for translating them differently? In
> other words, I am not concerned with how EN is translated, but that
> both
> occurrences should be translated the same way - not in general, but
> only
> in this specific situation.
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list