Re: Re. PISTEI VOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS... Heb. 11:3

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 03 1998 - 07:01:44 EDT


At 11:49 PM -0400 7/02/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 07:59 AM 7/2/98 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>At 12:59 AM -0400 7/02/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
>>>The phrase 'EK FAINOMENWN' is an interesting one - does it mean 'out of
>>>that which is visible', or 'from appearances'? Is there an implication that
>>>the material world is less than solid? I'm guessing here with very little
>>>but a feeling in the gut. Can anybody comment on this phrase?
>>
>>I think that this is the author of Hebrews using a synonym for the sake of
>>rhetorical inconcinnity (avoidance of precise antithesis): EK FAINOMENWN
>>really means the same thing as EK BLEPOMENWN, so that the sense is: "so
>>that what is seen has its created existence from things that are not
>>visible."
>
>I think the reason that I was thinking in terms of "appearances" is that it
>reminds me of some passages in Plato, where FAINW is used in a middle
>participle to refer to appearances. Is there a relationship between this
>use in Hebrews and Plato's use of the verb?
>
>Plato loves this verb, and often uses it to describe appearances. Note that
>he uses it more often than any other author on Perseus:
>
>http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/persfreq?lookup=fai/nw&lang=Greek&corpu
>s=2.0&author=&formentry=0
>
>You can see his uses here:
>
>http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/wordsearch?author=plat.&lookup=fai/nw&l
>ang=Greek&corpus=2.0
>
>I also note that the verb FAINW only appears as a middle three times in the
>GNT. In Matthew 2:7, Herod asked the Magi about the time of of the
>appearing of the star (TON CRONON TOU FAINOMENOU ASTEROS). In James 4:14,
>we are told that we do not know what our life will be like tomorrow, for we
>are but a mist that appears for a little while (ATMIS GAR ESTE hH PROS
>OLIGON FAINOMENH). In James 4:14 and the Hebrews 11:3 passage, it felt to
>me that there may have been a Platonic tone to the use of the word. Is it
>likely that these authors were influenced by Plato?
>
>FAINETAI!

This is the verb, in fact, on the basis of which I first came to realize
that the so-called aorist passive -H- and -QH- forms originated, and, in
many instances, continued to be understood simply an intransitive 3rd
aorists, even if they were construed with hUPO + genitive, as in:

        TAUTA EFANH hUPO TWN CALDAIWN "These things came to light through
the efforts of Chaldaeans" = "These things were discovered by the
Chaldaeans."

It is a fascinating verb in any case. In classical Attic it means "bring to
light," "show," "reveal" in the active, "come to light," "become visible,"
"appear" in the middle-reflexive. Moreover, it functions like DOKEW,
particularly in the 3rd person: i.e. with a supplementary PARTICIPLE it is
what is objectively evident that is underscored: FAINETAI WN, DOKEI WN =
"he/she/it evidently (manifestly) IS ...", while with a supplementary
INFINITIVE it is what is only superficially evident that is underscored:
FAINETAI EINAI, DOKEI EINAI = "he/she/it SEEMS to be (but may not, in fact,
be what he/she/it seems to be ...)"

In the above-cited passages in Matthew and James, I think the sense of the
middle FAINOMAI is simply "be evident, be visible" without any implications
of "seeming" or "mere appearance." Note that both are present (i.e.
progressive) participles: "the time of the star's appearance" (which is
limited temporally), and "a breathing that is evident, manifest for (only)
a little time." The phrase in Hebrews is indeed more Platonic in conception:

        EIS TO MH EK FAINOMENWN TO BLEPOMENON GEGONENAI

No doubt GEGONENAI is a reference to creation, even though the word refers
simply to "coming into being." I think we have a play on words here in the
two participles, both of which are used substantivally. I think one might
argue that the author of Hebrews envisions an ex-nihilo creation here,
although the phrasing suggests it rather than implies it: "so that what is
seen has its existence (derivative) from things that do not manifest
themselves." This is the language of the early Ionian physicists, Thales,
Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc., but I do think that Platonic dualism is also
clearly implicit in the author of Hebrews (whoever he or she may have
been). The more classical (and Platonic too) antithesis of the sort you
have in mind, Jonathan, is DOXA/ALHQEIA, which, if translated with a sort
of hyper-etymological intensity might be "(mere" seeming/unveiledness."
That is: DOXA is what appears, but what may not necessarily actually BE
what it appears to be, while ALHQEIA is what has objective reality, even if
it is not manifest to the naked eye.

I don't know whether this answers all your questions, Jonathan. But if not,
perhaps we can talk it over face-to-face this weekend (God willing). I will
make this much of a confident assertion: the author of Hebrews pretty
evidently (FAINETAI + ptc.) thinks in Platonic-dualistic terms about a
world characterized by GENESIS KAI FQORA opposed to a world of permanent
reality up above.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:51 EDT