Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Quinn McGinnis
Posts: 2
Joined: July 2nd, 2012, 8:30 pm

Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by Quinn McGinnis »

The end of Heb. 1:3 reads:
ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς

This is a very basic question that applies to a ton of passages..

The prepositional phrase ἐν ὑψηλοῖς modifies τῆς μεγαλωσύνης, right?

Is it...
He sat down at the right hand [of the Majesty on high]
or
He sat down [at the right hand of the Majesty] on high (i.e. ἐν ὑψηλοῖς modifies ἐκάθισεν)

The reason I ask is that according to introductory grammars, ἐν ὑψηλοῖς is not in attributive position and therefore couldn't really be attributed to τῆς μεγαλωσύνης...but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time, where you have basically Article - Noun - Prepositional Phrase, and the Prepositional Phrase goes with the noun....

Thanks!
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by David Lim »

Quinn McGinnis wrote:The end of Heb. 1:3 reads:
ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς

This is a very basic question that applies to a ton of passages..

The prepositional phrase ἐν ὑψηλοῖς modifies τῆς μεγαλωσύνης, right?

Is it...
He sat down at the right hand [of the Majesty on high]
or
He sat down [at the right hand of the Majesty] on high (i.e. ἐν ὑψηλοῖς modifies ἐκάθισεν)

The reason I ask is that according to introductory grammars, ἐν ὑψηλοῖς is not in attributive position and therefore couldn't really be attributed to τῆς μεγαλωσύνης...but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time, where you have basically Article - Noun - Prepositional Phrase, and the Prepositional Phrase goes with the noun....

Thanks!
It should be the second. To convey the first, it should be "της μεγαλωσυνης της εν υψηλοις". This does not apply when the noun is without the article, and the article before the adjectival phrase is not necessary. Determiners such as "ουτος" and "εκεινος" also follow different syntax. (http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/f ... on-47.html)
δαυιδ λιμ
Quinn McGinnis
Posts: 2
Joined: July 2nd, 2012, 8:30 pm

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by Quinn McGinnis »

Hmm, okay. A lot of the commentators seem to take τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς as a noun phrase..

Bruce (49) says “‘The Majesty on high’ is a periphrasis for God.”
Donald Guthrie (69) says “It is worth noting that the Majesty on high is a particularly respectful way of speaking of God. It reflects the Jewish reverence for the name of God which led devout Jews to avoid using it, and to substitute some phrase of respect.”

(?)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by David Lim »

Quinn McGinnis wrote:Hmm, okay. A lot of the commentators seem to take τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς as a noun phrase..

Bruce (49) says “‘The Majesty on high’ is a periphrasis for God.”
Donald Guthrie (69) says “It is worth noting that the Majesty on high is a particularly respectful way of speaking of God. It reflects the Jewish reverence for the name of God which led devout Jews to avoid using it, and to substitute some phrase of respect.”

(?)
Perhaps they read English translations, which are ambiguous? Gill's exposition and Vincent's word studies both understand "εν υψηλοις" correctly.
δαυιδ λιμ
MAubrey
Posts: 1095
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by MAubrey »

David Lim wrote:Perhaps they read English translations, which are ambiguous? Gill's exposition and Vincent's word studies both understand "εν υψηλοις" correctly.
No, David. The Greek is just as ambiguous as the English. Both Bruce and Guthrie's interpretations are perfectly fine, grammatically. They're not relying on English translations--Bruce least of all.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by David Lim »

MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:Perhaps they read English translations, which are ambiguous? Gill's exposition and Vincent's word studies both understand "εν υψηλοις" correctly.
No, David. The Greek is just as ambiguous as the English. Both Bruce and Guthrie's interpretations are perfectly fine, grammatically. They're not relying on English translations--Bruce least of all.
Mike, I am curious to know how the Greek is ambiguous. Can you show me clear examples where the prepositional phrase modifies an articular noun but is not preceded by the article? By the way Vincent specifically state that "εν υψηλοις" cannot function attributively with "της μεγαλωσυνης".
δαυιδ λιμ
George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by George F Somsel »

ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,
Both prepositional phrases are locative indicating where he sat (BDAG, sv ἐν #1)—"at the right hand of of majesty" and "in the heights", but ἐν ὑψηλοῖς does NOT modify τῆς μεγαλωσύνης but indicates the location of the sitting. It is correct to say that μεγαλωσύνης is a reference to God. Note Re 4.1-8 where the one seated on the throne references God.
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus
Jason Hare
Posts: 1016
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by Jason Hare »

MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:Perhaps they read English translations, which are ambiguous? Gill's exposition and Vincent's word studies both understand "εν υψηλοις" correctly.
No, David. The Greek is just as ambiguous as the English. Both Bruce and Guthrie's interpretations are perfectly fine, grammatically. They're not relying on English translations--Bruce least of all.
I agree with Mike. While Attic has the fixed structure that David mentioned (with the repeated τῆς before the prepositional modifier), this is not a fixed rule of Koine. The article is often omitted. The Greek is ambiguous, but I think that ἐν ὑψηλοῖς most naturally lends itself to interpretation as an attribution of τῆς μεγαλωσύνης.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Jason Hare
Posts: 1016
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by Jason Hare »

George F Somsel wrote:
ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,
Both prepositional phrases are locative indicating where he sat (BDAG, sv ἐν #1)—"at the right hand of of majesty" and "in the heights", but ἐν ὑψηλοῖς does NOT modify τῆς μεγαλωσύνης but indicates the location of the sitting. It is correct to say that μεγαλωσύνης is a reference to God. Note Re 4.1-8 where the one seated on the throne references God.
Is there a reason why you would not take ἡ μεγαλωσύνη ἐν ὑψηλοῖς as a phrase of its own, as similar to either ἡ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς μεγαλωσύνη or ἡ μεγαλωσύνη ἡ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς?

Perhaps it is because of the quality of the Greek in the book of Hebrews?
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Heb. 1:3 (basic question)

Post by cwconrad »

Jason Hare wrote:
George F Somsel wrote:
ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,
Both prepositional phrases are locative indicating where he sat (BDAG, sv ἐν #1)—"at the right hand of of majesty" and "in the heights", but ἐν ὑψηλοῖς does NOT modify τῆς μεγαλωσύνης but indicates the location of the sitting. It is correct to say that μεγαλωσύνης is a reference to God. Note Re 4.1-8 where the one seated on the throne references God.
Is there a reason why you would not take ἡ μεγαλωσύνη ἐν ὑψηλοῖς as a phrase of its own, as similar to either ἡ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς μεγαλωσύνη or ἡ μεγαλωσύνη ἡ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς?

Perhaps it is because of the quality of the Greek in the book of Hebrews?
I'm troubled about the principle stated here, namely, the (attributive) adjectival usage of prepositional phrases to qualify a noun. I would like to see a discussion of it or references in the NT grammars on it. Maybe this needs to be moved to the "Syntax and Grammar" subforum. I'm inclined to agree with George here.and affirm that ἐν ὑψηλοῖς is adverbial and should construe with ἐκάθισεν. David has asked for examples of such anarthrous attributive prepositional phrases in Biblical Koine, and I'd like to see them too. I know that it's been argued that in Rom 1:17 the cited text ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, the phrase ἐκ πίστεως, as Paul is reading it, must construe with ὁ δίκαιος. I do think that the ensuing argumentation set forth by Paul makes that seem likely -- and I was at one time persuaded of this by Edward Hobbs -- but it still troubles me. I still think that "Our Father in Heaven" is good English but bad Greek, while "Our Father who art in Heaven" is good (Jacobean) English and good Greek. I'm open to persuasion here, but i'd like to see the evidence.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”