[B-Greek] Translating Hebrews 11:11
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Apr 30 01:17:59 EDT 2009
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Moore" <tom at katabiblon.com>
To: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>; "Daniel Buck" <bucksburg at yahoo.com>;
<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 29. april 2009 22:16
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Translating Hebrews 11:11
> Iver,
>
> You say "The t.t. definition in BAGD and BDAG appears to be completely alien to and irrelevant for
> the NT and LXX.... When the reference is to "sperm" in the LXX, it is consistenly rendered KOITH
> SPERMATOS, never SPERMATOS alone and never in connection with KATABOLH. (See LEV 15:16, 17, 18,
> 32, LEV 18:20, LEV 19:20, LEV 22:4, NUM 5:13, WIS 3:16)."
>
> But Metzger says that "the expression DUNAMIN EIS KATABOLHN SPERMATOS ELABEN is *regularly* used
> of the male in begetting." (I've posted Metzger's comments in full at the end.)
>
> In which case, isn't possible that the author of Hebrews couldn't even imagine it being applied to
> Sarah (and therefore relevant)?
>
> Even BDAG, though it does say within its discussion of KATABOLH KOSMOU, that "she received the
> ability to establish a posterity"..."*may* be the mng. of Heb 11:11," goes on to devote a whole
> paragraph to the technical term, so BDAG seems to me to be very tentative about the first option.
>
> LSJ has "throwing down: hence, sowing, Corp.Herm.9.6; esp. of begetting, Philol.13, Luc.Am.19, cf.
> Ep.Hebr.11.11, Arr.Epict.1.13.3"
> (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.jsp?l=katabolh&la=greek).
>
> For me, my problem was never with the first part of the verse; I initially assumed Sarah was the
> subject and assumed from context that KATABOLHN SPERMATOS meant to conceive (rather than to found
> a posterity). Rather, I stumbled over the last clause EPEI PISTON hHGHSATO TON EPAGGEILAMENON,
> because I couldn't reconcile Hebrews' assertion that it was Sarah's faith with the Genesis account
> (unless the author did mean Abraham's faith and presumed the subject shift would be obvious to his
> audience). I would even characterize Sarah's reaction after the birth of Isaac in Gn. 21:7 as one
> of near disbelief.
>
> But if "to throw down seed" is a regular meaning of KATABOLHN SPERMATOS, such that the author of
> Hebrews couldn't even imagine it being applied to Sarah, then suddenly there is no confusion as to
> whose faith he meant because there would be no confusion as to who the subject is.
>
> My questions are 1) is the t.t. definition irrelevant despite Metzger's assertion that it is
> regulary used? 2) If we understand the expression to apply to Sarah, is Hebrews' assertion that it
> was Sarah's faith not itself problematic?
I am familiar with Metzger and Bauer et al. But over the years I have learnt not to trust "experts"
unless I see the data for myself. I have looked at all the relevant data in the GNT and LXX but do
not have access to the Hellenistic citations outside the Bible. Can someone post these texts so that
I can convince myself that the contexts and constructions are similar enough to be relevant? I have
been struck by how often exegetes and translators are misled by taking an expression literally in
terms of their own language (SPERMA = sperm?) and presuppositions rather than recognizing the
abundance of metonyms that occur in the Bible.
It is also my experience that even "experts" are highly dependent on what their peers have said and
what is the current tradition in their circles of reference. For instance, the various Danish
translations of Heb 11:11 have all taken the meaning that fits with Biblical contexts, namely "By
faith even Sara received power to lay the foundation for a lineage".
There are two questions that are important to me.
The first is whether Abraham or Sarah is the subject of the verse, and I cannot see that Abraham
could possibly be the subject. It doesn't fit with the Greek text at all. Even Carl has admitted,
that if we accept the t.t. idea, then the text must be in error. To me, that is backwards logic. I
prefer to say that since the t.t. idea does not fit with the text it is in fact an incorrect
hypothesis.
The KAI "even" suggests to the reader that this was somewhat unexpected from Sarah in light of her
initial reaction in Genesis. However, if he had refused Abraham to even try to get a child, that
would have been disbelief. She later came round and accepted to try. Faith is not initial and blind
acceptance. Jesus himself gave the illustration of two sons, of which the first son said no, but
later changed his mind and did what the father wanted. The second son said yes, but did not do it.
Jesus commended the one who initially said no, because he later turned around, so to answer your
second question, I see no problem there.
You refer to Gen 21:7: "And she said, “Who would ever have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse
children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age." I cannot fault Sarah for being realistic and
skeptical when she heard the first pronouncement. Maybe because I am a "doubting Thomas". But
Abraham was equally without faith, cf. 17:17: "Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said
to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years
old, bear a child?”" Sarah had a similar reaction in 18:12, when she first heard it, so they both
show the same natural initial skepticism.
The second question is the meaning of "towards founding of posterity". Since posterity is THE common
sense of SPERMA and it is used hundreds of times in the LXX and GNT, there must be something in the
context to lead strongly away from that basic Biblical sense. It has been argued that KATABOLH is
such a word, but this word is only used in the GNT in the sense of "foundation", so the case for a
different meaning has to come from outside the GNT. The word does not occur in the LXX except in 2
Macc 2:29 where NRSV translates it as "construction" (of a building) and GNB says "structure". I am
not sure whether the word refers to whole construction or just the foundation, which is the most
important part of a building process. The context of v. 30 (It is the duty of the original historian
to occupy the ground) and v. 32 (At this point therefore let us begin our narrative, without adding
any more to what has already been said; for it would be foolish to lengthen the preface while
cutting short the history itself) suggests that in the illustration of the building the foundation
might be in focus.
But if I can be given parallel constructions to EIS KATABOLHN SPERMATOS from Hellenistic sources, I
am very willing to reconsider. I do not dispute that the reference includes conception, but it is
more than that. It also includes the birth (a concept made explicit by some later mss) and the fact
that Isaac again had children and so on.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list