[B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5 (and before that Was question)
Yancy W Smith
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Wed Mar 10 09:44:26 EST 2010
Brilliant. I'm afraid it's above my pay grade, but makes me think
about all the fun rhetoricians, not to meantion comedians, can have
with grammar. Do they, we temporarily suspend the rules or hint at
deeper schmancier things not dreampt of in our grammar?
Fancy Yancy
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 10, 2010, at 7:16 AM, Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> 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 Pluperf
> ect.”
> 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