[B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5 (and before that Was question)
Mark Lightman
lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 10 08:16:29 EST 2010
Iver egrapse:
<Since I am not an American or the son of an American,
I had to consult my dictionary…>
Well done, Iver. Don’t let Yancy get away with those
fancy schmancy Yancy jokes. :)
Carl wrote:
<“…and an interesting allusion to the prophet of Tekoa…”>
All this caused me to go back to LXX Amos 7:14:
ουκ ημην προφητης εγω, ουδε υιος προφητου, αλλ’ η
αιπολος ημην, και κνιζων συκαμινα.
OUK HMHN PROFHTHS EGW OUDE hUIOS PROFHTOU,
ALL’ H AIPOLOS HMHN KAI KNIZWN SUKAMINA
"I didn't used to be a prophet, nor the son of a prophet.
Rather I was wont to be a herdsman and dresser of figs."
I was wondering about the imperfects. Now, I know what you
are going to say. EIMI has no aorist or perfect, so the choice here
was between the present, leaving the verb out (which is what
the Hebrew does) or the imperfect. But what kind of imperfect
is it? Conative? "I never tried to be a prophet." Or is this
an anti-perfect imperfect, i.e. Amos' not being a prophet does
NOT have present implications: "I did not used to be a prophet,
but I am now." If so, NASB "I am not a prophet" may be wrong.
Not to mention Prufrock: " I am no prophet--and here's no great matter."
If this guy is not a prophet, who is? He is a major minor prophet
KATA ME.
Or maybe this is a durative imperfect. "All my life I have not been
a prophet." But did you notice something funny here? To
render a Greek imperfect, you sometimes have to use an
English perfect. But to render a DIFFERENT kind of Greek
imperfect, you have to use a more perfect perfect,
i.e. a pluperfect. "I had not
been a prophet, but God is making me one now." Actually, I’m not
the first guy to notice this: Smyth 1905 “Imperfect for the Pluperfect.”
Great. Why not “Passive for the Active?” “Positivizing OU.”
Is all this perfectly clear? Yancy, you no-linguist-nor-a-son-of-a-linguist,
can you help us out here?
I tell people, I am not a doctor, nor am I the son of
a doctor (my Dad is a dentist.) And my mother, she
never stops complaining about this. "One son. One son
I brought into this OIKOUMENH, and he could not
be a doctor. Not even a linguist!” :)
Mark L
Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
--- On Tue, 3/9/10, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5 (Was question)
To: yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net, b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 10:52 PM
Hi, Yancy,
Since I am not an American or the son of an American, I had to consult my
dictionary to see that gander and gin have other meanings than the ones I am
used to. I also had to look up exordium to realize that Heb 1:1-2:18 is probably
not an exordium, but I am not clear on the difference between this word and an
introduction.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iver Larsen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yancy Smith" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 10. marts 2010 01:12
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5 (Was question)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list