Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
Has anyone commented on the significance that Heb 11:1 begins with Ἕστιν δὲ πίστις and not something more expected for a subject-predicate clause like Ἡ δὲ πίστις ἐστὶν ... ?
In other words, I'm wondering: (a) what it means for the copula ἔστιν to be first, and (b) why the subject is anarthrous.
In other words, I'm wondering: (a) what it means for the copula ἔστιν to be first, and (b) why the subject is anarthrous.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἕστιν δὲ πίστις ...
NIGTC says thisStephen Carlson wrote: ↑November 7th, 2020, 10:16 pm Has anyone commented on the significance that Heb 11:1 begins with Ἕστιν δὲ πίστις and not something more expected for a subject-predicate clause like Ἡ δὲ πίστις ἐστὶν ... ?
In other words, I'm wondering: (a) what it means for the copula ἔστιν to be first, and (b) why the subject is anarthrous.
ThxἜστιν δέ is followed by an anarthrous noun in definitions; cf. Plutarch (Almqvist 127); Philo, Deus Imm. 87; Leg. All. 3.211; Congr. 79; Plato, Symp. 186c; Lk. 8:11; Jn. 21:25; 2 Cor. 11:10; 1 Tim. 6:6; 1 Jn. 1:5; more often negatively, as in Heb. 4:13 (Woschitz 1979.628–632; MHT 3.307). The use of ἔστιν suggests that the verse is more or other than a definition. Δέ is transitional, not contrastive as in 10:39: the author is moving on to a full treatment of the faith he has just mentioned.
D
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
Thanks for that. It's not something I've heard of before, and while he doesn't cite any grammarians for the claim, he does give primary source references. And I love checking references. So let's see:Daniel Semler wrote: ↑November 7th, 2020, 10:31 pm NIGTC says thisἜστιν δέ is followed by an anarthrous noun in definitions; cf. Plutarch (Almqvist 127); Philo, Deus Imm. 87; Leg. All. 3.211; Congr. 79; Plato, Symp. 186c; Lk. 8:11; Jn. 21:25; 2 Cor. 11:10; 1 Tim. 6:6; 1 Jn. 1:5; more often negatively, as in Heb. 4:13 (Woschitz 1979.628–632; MHT 3.307). The use of ἔστιν suggests that the verse is more or other than a definition. Δέ is transitional, not contrastive as in 10:39: the author is moving on to a full treatment of the faith he has just mentioned.
This doesn't check out. αὕτη is not a noun, and ἡ παραβολή is not anarthrous. And the sentence isn't a definition.Luke 8:11 wrote:Ἔστιν δὲ αὕτη ἡ παραβολή· Ὁ σπόρος ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ.
Not a definition, but a simple existential. No noun either.John 21:25 wrote:Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἅτινα ἐὰν γράφηται καθ᾽ ἕν, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία.
Here we actually do have an anarthrous noun, but it's not a definition.2 Cor 11:10 wrote:ἔστιν ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ ὅτι ἡ καύχησις αὕτη οὐ φραγήσεται εἰς ἐμὲ ἐν τοῖς κλίμασιν τῆς Ἀχαΐας.
So far, this is the example most on point, but the anarthrous noun following ἔστιν δέ is not the subject but the predicate nominal. The actual subject, ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας, is arthrous as expected.1 Tim 6:6 wrote:ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας
This is a lot like Luke 8:11.1 John 1:5 wrote:Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία.
I suppose I could look up the non-NT references, though the citations are much more imprecise.
So, I appreciate that you cited Ellingworth on the syntax of Heb 11:1, but I don't see where he's getting his rule from. None of the examples I checked are proper parallels.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἕστιν δὲ πίστις ...
Seriously not excellent that.
So I had a look in Attridge, Hermeneia.
He makes a similar comment and list references mostly not in NT, though he includes the 1Tim 6:6, but rather in Plato as Ellingsworth does. The references are the same except that he adds 4 Macc 1.16.
“σοφία δὴ τοίνυν ἐστὶν γνῶσις θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτιῶν.”
(4 Maccabees 1:16 Greek Septuagint)
https://accordance.bible/link/read/LXX1#4Mac._1:16
Given that Attridge is commenting on "initial copula" this is a somewhat odd example to quote. However he says in a footnote
I have nothing else around that discusses this. There are comments in various places about the accenting of Ἔστιν (Robertson) or the S-PN pecking order (Wallace) as both are anarthrous here. Actually Wallace might be interesting if one accepts πίστις can be S without the article (though abstract and introduced earlier) due to context. Quoting the Wallace footnote in case it's of interest:
Thx
D
So I had a look in Attridge, Hermeneia.
He makes a similar comment and list references mostly not in NT, though he includes the 1Tim 6:6, but rather in Plato as Ellingsworth does. The references are the same except that he adds 4 Macc 1.16.
“σοφία δὴ τοίνυν ἐστὶν γνῶσις θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτιῶν.”
(4 Maccabees 1:16 Greek Septuagint)
https://accordance.bible/link/read/LXX1#4Mac._1:16
Given that Attridge is commenting on "initial copula" this is a somewhat odd example to quote. However he says in a footnote
So I don't think Attridge is so concerned with Ἔστιν δὲ and indeed he does not mention δέ in his remarks.The position of the copula does not, Grasser (Glaube, 45) and Williamson (Philo, 314) suggest, emphasize the relevance of "faith." It is simply part of the definitional formula.
I have nothing else around that discusses this. There are comments in various places about the accenting of Ἔστιν (Robertson) or the S-PN pecking order (Wallace) as both are anarthrous here. Actually Wallace might be interesting if one accepts πίστις can be S without the article (though abstract and introduced earlier) due to context. Quoting the Wallace footnote in case it's of interest:
Unless of course everyone (and it really does look like everyone thinks πίστις is the subject) is wrong and πίστις is the PN. Contextually it doesn't make any sense of course, so that seems like a non-starter for a theory though it would be convenient.The context rule is apparently valid when neither substantive in a given S-PN construction is a pronoun, articular, or a proper name (cf. Heb 11:1, where both substantives are anarthrous, but πίστις is the S being mentioned in 10:38-39 [similar is Eph 5:23]). But in such instances no ordering is necessary because the context rule is not in conflict with any other rule.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 64.
https://accordance.bible/link/read/Wallace_Greek#1169
Thx
D
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
Sounds about right.Daniel Semler wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 1:48 am So I don't think Attridge is so concerned with Ἔστιν δὲ and indeed he does not mention δέ in his remarks.
Yeah, that's what interests me about Heb 11:1. There are two main reasons for an abstract noun like πίστις to take the article (when not in reference to the particular faith of a person), if it's anaphoric or if it's the subject of a copular predication. Both seem to obtain in Heb 11:1, but πίστις is anarthrous nonetheless. It's a puzzle to me.Daniel Semler wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 1:48 am I have nothing else around that discusses this. There are comments in various places about the accenting of Ἔστιν (Robertson) or the S-PN pecking order (Wallace) as both are anarthrous here. Actually Wallace might be interesting if one accepts πίστις can be S without the article (though abstract and introduced earlier) due to context.
Yeah, I'm playing with ways for πίστις not to be subject of a prediction, for example, "Now there is faith, the assurance of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen." But I don't know if that really makes sense, discoursewise or otherwise.Daniel Semler wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 1:48 am Unless of course everyone (and it really does look like everyone thinks πίστις is the subject) is wrong and πίστις is the PN. Contextually it doesn't make any sense of course, so that seems like a non-starter for a theory though it would be convenient.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
Attridge looks like a(n uncited) source for Ellingworth, and the examples are much more to the point:Daniel Semler wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 1:48 am
So I had a look in Attridge, Hermeneia.
He makes a similar comment and list references mostly not in NT, though he includes the 1Tim 6:6, but rather in Plato as Ellingsworth does. The references are the same except that he adds 4 Macc 1.16.
Plato, Symp. 186C wrote:ἔστι γὰρ ἰαστρική, ὡς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ εἰπεῖν, ἐπιστήμη τῶν τοῦ σώματος ἐρωτικῶν πρὸς πλησμονὴν καὶ κένωσιν,
"For medicine, to speak in summary form, is the knowledge of the desires of the body with regard to filling and emptying."
Philo, Congr. 79 wrote:ἔστι γὰρ φιλοσοφία ἐπιτήδευσις σοφίας, σοφία δἒ ἐπιστήμη θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτίων,
"For philosophy is the practice or study of wisdom, and wisdom is the knowledge of things divine and human and their causes.
The third example is arthrous, however.Plutarch, De curiositate 6 (518C) wrote:ἔστι γὰρ ἡ πολυπραγμοσύνη φιλοπευστία τῶν ἐν ἀποκρύψει καὶ λανθανόντων,
"For curiosity is really a passion for finding out whatever is hidden and concealed.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
Is it possible that the anarthrous noun in these sorts of definitions emphasizes the qualitative nature of what is being defined in the sense of giving a general definition? So for example in Heb 11:1, it's not "the faith" as in a particular faith however understood from context (anaphoric, or a generally known body of things to be believed), but simply "faith" as a concept?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
Possibly? I think the generic article is perfectly fine for predicating something about an abstract noun. Cf. Rom 12:9 Ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος. or 1 Cor 8:1 ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ. But on the other hand, we get 1 Pet 4:8 ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, where it seems to me that the anarthrous ἀγάπη reinforces/fits the proverbial nature of the proposition.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 8:23 am Is it possible that the anarthrous noun in these sorts of definitions emphasizes the qualitative nature of what is being defined in the sense of giving a general definition? So for example in Heb 11:1, it's not "the faith" as in a particular faith however understood from context (anaphoric, or a generally known body of things to be believed), but simply "faith" as a concept?
The information structure / discourse analysts might say that the anarthrous abstract noun shows up in "all-comment" statements, rather than topic-comment statements. (The γάρ statements cited by Attridge are arguably all-comment.) So maybe Heb 11:1 is introducing "faith" as a new discourse topic in an all-comment (hence anarthrous) rather than being about some already established discourse topic of faith?
Initial ἔστιν clauses are rare in the NT, so there may be something special going on there too. But I don't see any obvious patterns.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
I thought the same and indeed Ellingsworth does mention in the PrefaceStephen Carlson wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 5:56 am
Attridge looks like a(n uncited) source for Ellingworth, and the examples are much more to the point:
but there is no direct citation at the point in the commentary....; in its final stages of preparation it has greatly benefited from the work of Attridge and Lane.
Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), viii-ix.
https://accordance.bible/link/read/NIGTC-Hebrews#27
I tried something like that but it feels odd after ch 10.Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 5:32 amYeah, I'm playing with ways for πίστις not to be subject of a prediction, for example, "Now there is faith, the assurance of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen."Daniel Semler wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 1:48 am Unless of course everyone (and it really does look like everyone thinks πίστις is the subject) is wrong and πίστις is the PN. Contextually it doesn't make any sense of course, so that seems like a non-starter for a theory though it would be convenient.
thx
D
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Heb 11:1 Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ...
Part of it is the nature of the commentary genre. They often recycle the material of their predecessors. In them, facts tend not to be attributed to those who found them, and the language isn't close enough to cite. A lot of the material is derivative and who knows how derivative Attridge was in the first place (e.g., did some German commentator collect the parallels)? At any rate, I cannot but feel that Ellingworth did not improve upon Attridge here.Daniel Semler wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 8:27 pmI thought the same and indeed Ellingsworth does mention in the PrefaceStephen Carlson wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 5:56 am
Attridge looks like a(n uncited) source for Ellingworth, and the examples are much more to the point:
but there is no direct citation at the point in the commentary....; in its final stages of preparation it has greatly benefited from the work of Attridge and Lane.
Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), viii-ix.
https://accordance.bible/link/read/NIGTC-Hebrews#27
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia