[B-Greek] Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5 (Was question)

yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Wed Mar 10 05:05:46 EST 2010


1. I am sorry for springing "exordium," on you. It is Latin rhetorical jargon but "introduction" is a good English term for it. If 1:1-2:15 or 18 isn't the introduction (exordium) of Hebrews, what, pray is? The term "exordium" is used to alert the modern reader to the culturally appropriate differences in expectation between our ways of introducing speeches or compositions like Hebrews intended for oral performance and ancient expectations for introductions. One of those expectations was that the speaker would sprinkle the introduction with the special terms for important concepts to be used in the main argument of the speech. In essence, you get the special or surprising term outside of normal context and that raises the expectation that the speaker or author will further define/specify or contextualize the terms introduced. Not only do we need to study linguistics and semantics, but rhetorical habits. These also shape meaning and Hebrews has all the hallmarks of a rhetorically sophisticated composition. Knowing how Hebrews used important Greco-Roman rhetorical techniques can greatly help a translator make sense of this book.

Iver said:
> Of course I realize that a word may be used in a sense that is not the most usual one, BUT it is the context that will exclude the "normal" sense and force the reader/hearer to invoke a different sense. This is not the case in Heb 1:6. The normal sense of EISAGW is "bring in" and you have to argue convincingly from the immediate context (not another chapter) that a different sense is intended. You have not done so.
2. I am usually quite impressed scholarship, especially in grammar and linguistic knowledge, niether of which are strong suits for me, but here you are just wrong. Who determines the "immediate context"? You suggested Luke 2 is appropriate. Yet you have not produced a single reference to EISAGW EIS refering to birth or incarnation. Furthermore, what do the chapter numbers have to do with this? So, 2:5 is disqualitied as being "immediate context" because of what reason? I'm afraid I cannot accept this exegetical rule. I can see not basis for it either in grammar, semantics, rhetoric or whatever.

> I did take a gander at my short version of LSJ, but I did not find "present". I did find "introduce", but that is simply a literal rendering from Greek to Latin. From the English "introduce" you can easily move to "present", but you cannot do that for EISAGW.
> The examples you mention from Sirach 11:29 and 34 both agree with the basic sense of "bring in". That this might be translated as "invite" is an English translation issue caused by cultural differences. It still means "bring in".
3. This is where looking at the longer LSJ would help. Don't get stuck on the glosses. It is accessible on the Perseus Digital Library for free. Relax a little, take a deep breath and look over the list of glosses. Then consider, isn't the proximity of meaning between "bring in" and "present" so close as to be so easily associated that one could stand for the other? Isnt' this how meaning extension and metomymn work? I don't know much about semantics, admittedly, but this much seems plain.

> It is correct that the word is not restricted to a physical movement into a building, house, land etc, but is also used to bring in somebody into a league, group, fraternity etc. In the case of Heb 1:6 it is bringing into the inhabited world, i.e. cause the person to become one of those inhabitants.
> 
> I looked up some of the 163 EISAGW places in the LXX and found an interesting one which does have the word "present":
> Gen 47:7 εἰσήγαγεν δὲ Ιωσηφ Ιακωβ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐναντίον Φαραω
> EISHGAGEN DE IWSHF IAKWB TON PATERA AUTOU KAI ESTHSEN AUTON ENANTION FARAW
> Then Joseph brought in his father Jacob, and presented him before Pharaoh (NRSV)

> The first step is to bring him in, and the second step is to present him before Pharaoh. Bringing in and presenting is not the same. ESIAGW means the first, not the second.
> 
> If you can find me examples of EISAGW where "bring in" cannot be the intended meaning, I'll be willing to reconsider.
4. See #3. If EISAGW refers to the entire process of someone being inducted (Latin) or introduced (Latin) for membership in a group, that would include presentation. I don't get your objection to translating as "present". In translation we often subsitute a part for whole, especially where one idiom in the L2 (target language) may be misleading. For example, in English "bring into the world" is almost ALWAYS speaking of NATURAL BIRTH. However, that idea does not seem to be associated as strongly with the Greek word EISAGW EIS. (I expected to find lots of them, but haven't, one of the reasons for my abandoning the position you are currently defending). The usual translation "bring into the world is misleading. And I suspect that most readers in English are misled, as you have been, that the "immediate context" of Hebrews 1:6 is speaking of birth (and therefore incarnation) simply on the basis of this English idiom "bring into the world." Otherwise, I see nothing in the immediate context to support such a claim, and you haven't been able to produce one shred of evidence that Heb 1:6 is speaking about this topic, other than Luke 2.

> I am aware that a few modern commentators have taken this position (from Schierse, 1955, I guess), and I was rather surprised that Ellingworth goes that way, too, but then commentators easily go into a rut, since they depend heavily upon each other's views. Since his book is the only one I have access to, I have carefully studied his argumentation. He is balanced most of the time and gives various options at different points:
> 1. PALIN? probably means the next quote/argument from Scripture in a series rather than "bring in again".
> 2. EISAGAGHi probably refers to a particular time rather than indefinite.
> 3. Is the time future with reference to the OT quote and past with reference to Hebrews or future with reference to both? He then brings in 2:9 and says that "the context strongly suggests the enthronement of Christ." Here Ellingworth seems to go against one of the most fundamental and most ignored principles of exegesis: Immediate context takes priority over wider context. The theme and purpose of Heb 1:4-14 is quite different from Heb 2:1-4 which is again different from 2:5-18. Heb 1:4-14 must be understood within its own context and theme. Bringing in 2:5 and 2:9 as conclusive evidence at this point is not warranted, because the themes are too different.
5, Well, see #4 above. Whay are the "themes are too different"? Other than the assumption that EISAGW EIS THN OIKOUMENH is somehow speaking of birth/incarnation? Let's say that 1:4-14 to 2:1-4 and 2:5-18 are "different" but progressions in an argument. My argument hinges on the use of the present tense in the phrase in 2:5 τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν, περὶ ἧς λαλοῦμεν THN OIKOUMENH THN MELLOUSAN, PERI hHS LALOUMEN, that it is refering to the ongoing discussion begun in 1:1 and mementarily put aside in 2:1-4 (the first of several exhortations given as asides) and now resumed in 2:5. What those who take your view almost never are able to do is relate LALOUMEN to anything remotely like OIKOUMENH TNH MELLOUSAN in the context.


> It is necessary to study in more detail the implication of the aorist of EISAGAGHi and the present of LEGEI, but I'll leave that for now. Nor will I repeat what I have said before about 1:7 which IMO is misunderstood by almost all translations.
> 
> The distinction between OIKOUMENH and KOSMOS is not contrastive but inclusive.
6. Are you speaking in terms of realia? Are you speaking in terms of the argument of Hebrews? If you are speaking of the things you and I call "inhabited world" and "world" in English, then clearly you may be right. But if you are speaking in terms of a specific argument by a speaker with a specific purpose then you will have to make your argument based, not on general prima facie considerations but in terms of the details of the argument you are analyzing. Hebrews has sermonic aspects. It can create concepts ad hoc and develope them on the fly (as speakers or writers often do).

> Each word has a certain semantic range which can be drawn as a circle. OIKOUMENH has a smaller circle that is completely enclosed within the borders of KOSMOS.
7. This principle sounds good an well within a conceptual vacuum, but not in the rough and tumble world of rhetoric, where one can take a passage from Psalm 95, separate KOSMOS and OIKOUMENH in an interesting way relevant to the needs of the audience at the time, and base a whole argument on that distinction. Of course that does not change the fact that on the street outside the church meeting people are still using OIKOUMENH and KOSMOS in the same old way as before. But using language in these ways are powerful tools for faith. These practices give us vision for a world that we cannot see (Heb. 11) and look forward to with anticipation great enough to permit the greatest sacrifice (Heb. 12).

> KOSMOS can refer to creation of the earth/world even before it was inhabited and is therefore wider in use than OIKOUMENH. If you want to compare the two, you could refer to Heb 10:5 which is quite similar in wording because of the LEGEI and the close relationship between EISERCOMAI and EISAGW.
> 
Of course you know that I am going to say KOSMOS and OIKOUMENH are distinguished tacitly in Hebrews for rhetorical purposes.

Yancy said previously:
>> 
>> I admit that my understanding of OIKOUMENH as the "world" to come or the heavenly world is a minority position and an unusual use of the word. And that it has refers to that world in 2:5 with the qualifier "future." I also believe that 2:5 is a back-reference to what the author is discussing in the exordium 1:1-2:18 of his speech/composition. Besides Lane, this analysis has been accepted and cogently argued by Craig Koester in the Anchor Bible so I am not in bad company to take a position against BDAG. I referenced GH OIKOUMENH in Exodus as a possible background and mentioned its relevance to Hebrews 4:1-11 as a picture of the world to come (which, by the way does not refer to a world yet uncreated). David daSilva also argues for this meaning of OIKOUMENH in 1:6 saying "the author's terminology may well have been influenced by the use of terms GH and OIKOUMENH in the Psalms. There are numerous psalms in which the earth is shaken, but the OIKOUMENH in the Psalms is unshakable. Psalm 95(96):9-10 reads προσκυνήσατε τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν αὐλῇ ἁγίᾳ αὐτοῦ, σαλευθήτω ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ. εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ῾Ο κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν, καὶ γὰρ κατώρθωσεν τὴν οἰκουμένην, ἥτις οὐ σαλευθήσεται, "Do obeisance to the Lord in his holy court, let all the earth (GH) shake from before him. Say among the nations, "The lord became king! Indeed, he set right the world (OIKOUMENH), which shall not be shaken." DaSilva remarks, "the psalmists are not consistent in their application of ... terminology and no doubt considered "earth" and "world" to be synonymous, [but] the author of Hebrews appears ot adopt the distinctions present in [1:6; 12:26-28; cf. 1:10-12] to create differentiation between the created world and the unshakable realm where the Son is enthroned and believers will enter at the last "shaking" of the created order." (DeSilva, _Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the Hebrews," 97).
>> 
>> Iver asked:
>> 
>> How will you defend the unprecedented translation of EISAGW EIS with "present
>> to"?
>> 
>> [Yancy Smith]
>> Well, you and I work in Bible translation and we know that, while precedent is good cover, it isn't as helpful in breaking out of ruts. As far as EISAGW or EISAGW EIS is concerned, I don't think "present" is outside its semantic range. For example in Lysia's speech Against Nikomachos 2.3-5 (Lys. 30.2) The Lysias is ginning up to make Nicky look as bad as possible: "Now, to tell how Nicomachus's father was a public slave, and what were the man's own occupations in his youth, *and at what age he was admitted to his clan,* would be a lengthy affair: but when he became a commissioner for transcribing the laws, it is common knowledge what outrages he committed on the city." The relevant portion of the text is *καὶ οἷα νέος ὢν οὗτος ἐπετήδευσε, καὶ ὅσα ἔτη γεγονὼς εἰς τοὺς φράτερας εἰσήχθη* KAI hOIA NEOS WN hOUTOS EPETHDEUSE, KAI hOSA ETH GEGONWS EIS TOUS FRATERAS and it refers to the formal presention or introduction of a child to the members of one's civic clan or tribe φρατρία as an adult worthy of the franchize of free citizenry. While that is near the meaning of Heb. 1:6,  more to the point are the multiple examples of EISAGW EIS in the LXX about bringing someone into one's house. The example in Ben Sirach (LXX) is interesting for its semantic value, Μὴ πάντα ἄνθρωπον εἴσαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου· πολλὰ γὰρ τὰ ἔνεδρα τοῦ δολίου. MH PANTA ANQRWPON EISAGE EIS TON OIKON SOU; POLLA GAR TA ENEDRA TOU DOLIOU. Where one's "house" is a metonym for one's family. One could be forgiven for translating EISAGW here "invite into your home" (NRSV) or even "present to" the members of your household. See v. 34  ἐνοίκισον ἀλλότριον, καὶ διαστρέψει σε ἐν ταραχαῖς καὶ ἀπαλλοτριώσει σε τῶν ἰδίων σου. ENOIKISON ALLOTRION, KAI DIASTREYEI SE EN TARACAIS KAI APALLOTRIWSEI SE TWN IDIWN SOU. The reason I think that the domestic shere is appropriate for the metaphor of presenting Jesus to the OIKOUMENH is the domestic imagery that runs all the way through from 1:6 to 2:5-11 (the thesis of the book) and 2:12-18 where Christ "presents" believers to the Father as "brothers" and 3:2 where Christ is compared with Moses, the faithful servant in the house OIKWi AUTOU.
>> If these considerations are not sufficient to establish the appropriatness of some meanings of "present" as a within the semantic range of EISAGW, taking a gander at LSJ will probably do the trick.
>> 
>> [Yancy Smith]
>>> Here is the text and footnote we put in our English translation for
>>> translators:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> And then, when God presents his first-born Son to the world,* he says,
>>> 
>>> “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
>>> 
>>> [*] world This may mean the world into which Jesus was born (see Lk. 2:1-14) or
>>> it may have the same meaning as in 2:5—the world to come, to which Christ is
>>> presented as king after his resurrection (see Php. 2:9-11).
>>> 
> 
Yancy


More information about the B-Greek mailing list