Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. 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.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by David Lim »

Abigail asked: Can I render this verse as follow,

"Therefore, as we were leaving the elementary doctrine of Christ towards perfection, let us be moved on (by the Spirit or natural spiritual development), which means we no longer laying a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,"
I think "towards perfection" should be with "let us be moved on" rather than with "we were leaving" (leave something and go to something else). Also, I think the last part is not a factual statement but part of the exhortation; "we should no longer lay ...". If I were to paraphrase it:
[Heb 6] [1] hence, may we leave the beginning words about Christ and then be brought to completeness, never again laying down the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God (for the foundation has already been laid).
δαυιδ λιμ
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by cwconrad »

abigail.hunter wrote:Can I render this verse as follow,

"Therefore, as we were leaving the elementary doctrine of Christ towards perfection, let us be moved on (by the Spirit or natural spiritual development), which means we no longer laying a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,"
Originally the question was: How do we understand Heb 6:1 -- or how do we understand in particular how φερώμεθα functions in the sentence? It now appears that this is an exercise in the traditional process of grammar-translation pedagogy. I’ve expressed elsewhere my concerns about the viability of that method, but now the question has become, “How could I put this in English?” or “Could I put it in English this way?” I doubt there’s a consensus on this question either, but I do think at least one alternative ought to be offered.

There are many different ways to go about translating a Greek text. One of them is to convey the individual sense of every word as a unit that will fit into a sequence with the individual sense of every other word of a statement. At best (or worst) that is the woodenly literal version. Some really do prefer that and conceive that the purpose of studying Greek is to produce just such translations.

My own preference has been to attempt to understand the thought as expressed in the syntactic relationship of phrases in the original text and then reproduce not the words, not the exact phrases of the Greek in English equivalents, but rather to convert the thought of the original text into an English formulation that expresses the thought as clearly and intelligibly as possible. I may not interpret the sense of the original text in the same manner as others, but I do believe it is obligatory to produce an English sentence that sounds more like English than Greek.

If I were attempting to convert Heb 6:1 into clear and intelligible English, I’d do it more like this:

Heb. 6:1 Διὸ ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώμεθα, μὴ πάλιν θεμέλιον καταβαλλόμενοι μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν,

“So let’s stop rehashing the first principles of the gospel; let’s move on toward its consummation; let’s not keep laying the groundwork -- i.e. renunciation of futile acts and putting our faith in God.”

Some will see this as a paraphrase -- or a biased interpretation -- rather than a translation of the original text. But this is my notion of what bringing a Greek text into English involves.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 259
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon »

Professor Conrad:

I like your dynamic rendering. I think it largely captures the sense.

One question: I note you take τελειότητα as referring to the consummation of the λόγον rather than to the spiritual maturity of the readers. Does the presence of the article with τελειότητα influence this choice? Is it, on some subtle level, the τελειότητα of the λόγον, corresponding to the ἀρχῆς of that same λόγον? Would "let's move on toward our spiritual maturity" be more suitable if τελειότητα were anarthrous? Would the article here be roughly equivalent to a possessive adjective?
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by cwconrad »

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Professor Conrad:

I like your dynamic rendering. I think it largely captures the sense.

One question: I note you take τελειότητα as referring to the consummation of the λόγον rather than to the spiritual maturity of the readers. Does the presence of the article with τελειότητα influence this choice? Is it, on some subtle level, the τελειότητα of the λόγον, corresponding to the ἀρχῆς of that same λόγον? Would "let's move on toward our spiritual maturity" be more suitable if τελειότητα were anarthrous? Would the article here be roughly equivalent to a possessive adjective?
Text: Heb. 6:1 Διὸ ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώμεθα, μὴ πάλιν θεμέλιον καταβαλλόμενοι μετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν,

No; I think the λόγος τῆς ἀρχῆς is what is to be left behind. I do see a polarity here: the ἀρχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ and ἡ τελειότης (τοῦ Χριστοῦ). I don't think it's a matter of the τελειότης τοῦ λόγου. It's a matter, as I see it, of the first stage of a process of experiencing, knowing, engaging Chirst as opposed to the culmination of that process. I think that the author is urging those who listen to this message to move on from the initiation into Christ at which they seem to want to linger and move on to maturity of their Christ-experience and all that means. Both terms have the article (τῆς ἁρχῆς, τὴν τελειότητα); I don't think there's anything pronominal/possessive about either one; rather, the nouns are specified precisely. Several years ago there was a popular song expressing devotion to Christ in football terms that some people found sort of amusing: "Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goal posts of life." I think our text here could be rephrased in the language of baseball thus: "Our game is life in Christ. Let's move off of first base and see if we can't get all the way home. Let's not stand still."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
abigail.hunter
Posts: 4
Joined: February 26th, 2012, 3:29 am
Location: Μαλαισια

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by abigail.hunter »

In this verse, there are 3 verbs,
αφεντες
φερωμεθα
καταβαλλομενοι.

The first and third verb are both participles, therefore, I see φερωμεθα is the main verb of this sentence. If we translate all three verbs as "let us leave", "let us move on", "let us not keep laying", are we missing the weight the author was trying to stress on the main verb φερωμεθα?

By the way, English is not my first language. :)
Αβιγαια
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by cwconrad »

abigail.hunter wrote:In this verse, there are 3 verbs,
αφεντες
φερωμεθα
καταβαλλομενοι.

The first and third verb are both participles, therefore, I see φερωμεθα is the main verb of this sentence. If we translate all three verbs as "let us leave", "let us move on", "let us not keep laying", are we missing the weight the author was trying to stress on the main verb φερωμεθα?

By the way, English is not my first language. :)
What's involved here is translation strategies. Another factor involved in understanding Greek is the distinctive way in which participles are used in distinctive ways in Greek: an aorist participle often indicates an earlier action that's part of the sequential process of action indicated by the main verb. If the main verb is an imperative or exhortation, then the aorist participle may indicate the urgency of doing first what the aorist verb points at: "first leave behind, then move on ... " In our text, the final participle is negated and it's a present participle that seems to indicate NOT doing something repeatedly. Thus the sequence indicated by the aorist participle, the exhortation, and then the negated present participle: "(first) leaving behind {lit. "having left behind"}, let's move on, NOT repeatedly laying down etc." My translation strategy was to turn the tripartite sentence of Heb 6:1 into three short imperative clauses indicating: (a) what to do first, (b) the urgent thing to do now, and (c) the thing NOT to keep doing.

As I tried to say earlier, my notion of translation procedure is (1) grasp the intended meaning of the original-language text; then (2) consider how that intended meaning can be most naturally and effectively expressed in the target language, without worrying about whether the target-language version mirrors the structure of the original-language text. I think that the most common translation strategy of beginners is to attempt to reproduce the meaning of each foreign-language word with some precision in as near as possible the same word order and structural pattern as it falls in the original-language text. Even if the original text being translated is relatively short and relatively free from abstractions, the result is usually going to be a sentence that doesn't sound natural in the target language. I believe that beginners imagine that this method brings everything in the original text into the version that they are creating, but in fact what it does is to confront the reader with a sort of maze to wade through when he/she really would rather go straight from one side to the other. It's not the words of the original text we need to translate but rather the meaning that the author of the original text intended to convey. I'm reminded of an old Latin proverb regarding the secret of rhetoric: "rem tene; verba sequentur" Loosely translated, that expesses my notion of what translation should do: "If you hold on to the essential meaning, you won't have trouble finding the right words."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by Mark Lightman »

ἠρώτησεν ἡ Αβιγηλ: The first and third verb are both participles, therefore, I see φερωμεθα is the main verb of this sentence. If we translate all three verbs as "let us leave", "let us move on", "let us not keep laying", are we missing the weight the author was trying to stress on the main verb φερωμεθα?
Yes, just a little.
By the way, English is not my first language.



Would it happen, by any chance, to be Italian?

Traduttore, Traditore!

τὸ ἑρμηνευθὲν τὸ ἐρημωθέν.

rendered, rent.


ἐρρωσο, φιλτάτη!
abigail.hunter
Posts: 4
Joined: February 26th, 2012, 3:29 am
Location: Μαλαισια

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by abigail.hunter »

cwconrad wrote: an aorist participle often indicates an earlier action that's part of the sequential process of action indicated by the main verb. If the main verb is an imperative or exhortation, then the aorist participle may indicate the urgency of doing first what the aorist verb points at: "first leave behind, then move on ... " In our text, the final participle is negated and it's a present participle that seems to indicate NOT doing something repeatedly. Thus the sequence indicated by the aorist participle, the exhortation, and then the negated present participle:...
I think these are the things I am missing, the use of participles. As a beginner, I think trying to translate some verses and seek for feedback would be a meaningful way to learn Koine Greek. :lol:

Thanks!
Αβιγαια
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Hebrews 6:1 φερωμεθα

Post by cwconrad »

abigail.hunter wrote:
cwconrad wrote: an aorist participle often indicates an earlier action that's part of the sequential process of action indicated by the main verb. If the main verb is an imperative or exhortation, then the aorist participle may indicate the urgency of doing first what the aorist verb points at: "first leave behind, then move on ... " In our text, the final participle is negated and it's a present participle that seems to indicate NOT doing something repeatedly. Thus the sequence indicated by the aorist participle, the exhortation, and then the negated present participle:...
I think these are the things I am missing, the use of participles. As a beginner, I think trying to translate some verses and seek for feedback would be a meaningful way to learn Koine Greek. :lol:

Thanks!
Participles are one of the greatest challenges for English-speakers learning ancient Greek (You say you're not a native English-speaker, but you've never indicated what your native language is). Participles are the workhorses of ancient Greek sentence structure, especially in more sophisticated verse and prose, such as Luke and Hebrews especially in the GNT, but even in supposedly simpler prose, such as the Johannine books of the GNT. I've sometimes pointed beginning students to Eph 1:3-13 as an example of the complex interaction of participles with main verbs. You will find reasonably good discussions of participial usage in the various reference grammars, but I question whether any primer in ancient Greek adequately explains it; the first-level primers in Greek Composition may be more useful in this matter. Verbal aspect plays an important role in aorist participles, which sometimes indicate action prior to that of the main verb but sometimes indicate simultaneous completed action (e.g. γελάσας εἶπεν, "he said with a smile") or may be used with a main verb in a manner that seems to English-speakers to be reversed (e.g. τί βουλόμενος ταῦτα ἔπραξας, Eng. "Why did you want to do that?"). I honestly believe that the only way to acquire an adequate grasp of ancient Greek participial usage is to read a lot of good narrative or dialogue or speeches in bulk. Translating verses and soliciting feedback? Not really (although I realize you weren't writing that seriously), because understanding the verses has to precede meaningful translation; unfortunately the reading and "translation" of Greek texts in standard pedagogy is too much a matter of "decoding" the original-language text and reproducing its elements in a target language that is very different in its standard structures from ancient Greek.
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 “What does this text mean?”