Greenlee, J. Harold

English

Asbury Theological Seminary

HEBREWS 11:11 "By FAITH SARAH RECEIVED ABILITY" J. HAROLD GREENLEE <Note: The works referred to lry their author in this article and the English Bible transla-tions mentioned are idenhfied in the bibliography at the end of the article. References are to their disaission or translahon of this verse unless otherwise noted.) The purpose of this article is to show that the subject of Hebrews I I : I I is Sarah, not Abraham. I am moreover, that the assumed need to make Abraham the subject is largely due to a misundemanding of one phrase in this verse. Someone reading the first part of Hebrews I I: I I, IlicHEt Kat amiJ L<ippa ... o-Uvaµtv ... i:Xaj3ev for the first time-either in this shorter form or with the additions <JtEtpa 'barren', TJ <JtEtpa 'the barren one', or <JtEtpa OOOU 'being barren' following 'Sarah' -would surely have no reason to interpret it as anything other than "By faith Sarah herself also received ability .... " The difficulty lies later in the verse. We do, however, need to deal with these alternate readings, since they are signifi-cant. Indeed, GNT reads ... L<ippa crte\pa ... Sarah barren .. .' although with a "C' decision, indicating that "the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text." As for internal evidence, it is an accepted principle that scribes were more likely to add a word or words intentionally, but to omit unintentionally. Metzger suggests that the majority of the GNT committee nevertheless considered 'barren' to be origi-nal but was omitted accidentally by similarity in appearance to the immediately pre-ceding 'Sarah' written in uncial letters. However, these two words in uncial letters do not appear to be sufficiently similar to make such omission by homoioteleuton like-ly. I rather, that it is far more likely that the original text read 'Sarah' alone, and that scribes not surprisingly made intentional additions in order to indicate f. Harold Greenlee, a missionary of OMS International, was professor of New Testament Greek at Asbury 1heo/ogical Seminary for twenty years. THE ASBURY THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL SPRING 1999 VOL. 54 N 0. 68 Greenlee Sarah's situation: 'Sarah barren', 'Sarah the barren one', and 'Sarah being barren'. Turning to external (manuscript) evidence, the textual apparatus of GNT and of Aland indicate, I am confident, that the support for 'Sarah' alone is as strong as, and probably stronger than, the support for the addition of 'barren', 'the barren one', and 'being barren' com-bined. In thus reading 'Sarah' alone I am in agreement with Alford, Bloomfield, Dads, Montefiore, Moffatt, Lunemann, Westcott, and the KJV, NAB, NASB, NJB, and REB. On the other hand, 'Sarah barren' or 'Sarah being barren' Gt is not possible to determine with certainty which of these two readings some follow) is read by Miller, Bruce, Ellingworth-Nida, Lane, and the GNT, NIY, NRSY, ITV, TNT. I am confident, then, that both internal and external evidence support the shorter read-ing. To anticipate a point to be discussed later, if the original text does not include <H£lpu in some form, the whole case for making this phrase a subordinate circumstantial or con-cessional phrase collapses, of course, and the verse can only be read, "By faith Sarah her-self received ability ... It is true that the subject of verses 8- I 0 and again in v. 12 is Abraham. How, then, is the change of the subject to Sarah in V. 11 justified? The words KUt mrrij 'herself also' are linguistically significant. They are doubtless emphatic, as Moll, Lunemann, and Ellingworth-Nida agree, both by their position and by the words themselves. According to Alford, these words indicate a transition to a new subject, with prominence. Moffatt thinks they refer to Sarah's physical condition. According to Bloomfield, Dods, Hewitt, Moll, Lunemann, Bruce, and Westcott they indicate a contrast with Sarah's former unbe-lief. Each of these interpretations has something to commend it. This is the only example of the persons of faith in this chapter who is introduced by such a phrase. If KUt has the sense of 'also' (which I believe is preferable) it presents Sarah as a special instance in addi-tion to Abraham, not merely one more in the list of heroes. If it means 'even' it may rein-force the emphatic sense of uu1ij 'herself.' In any case, uu1ij 'herself may well imply a contrast with her initial unbelief and also refer to her physical condition. At any rate, the phrase KU! uu1ij 'herself also' is a linguistic device indicating that Sarah is not merely one more person in the list of heroes; she is presented in company with Abraham. We now come to the crux of the problem, the KmupoA.ijv "for laying down of seed." The problem lies in what I am confident is the erroneous and most unfortunate translation of this prepositional phrase as if it were an infinitive phrase, lluvuµiv KmupuA.eiv cmtpµu, "ability to lay down seed." It is thus dealt with as an infinitive, clearly or apparently, by the Bauer and the Lauw-Nida Greek lexicons, by Montefiore, Miller, Bruce, Ellingworth-Nida, Lane, and by the KJY, NAB, NASB, NIY, NJB, REB, TEV, TNT. The problem is that translating this phrase as an infinitive implies that the subject of the infinitive is the same person as the subject of the clause; e.g., Jn. 4:43, ij8€A11crev "he (Jesus) wanted to go out," and Mark I :24, airoA.oom "have you come to destroy usr The difficulty is that it is probably true that refers to the father's function in conception, not the mothers (although Westcott, KJY, NAB, NASB, NJB, REB, and TNT take it to refer to Sarah's function). Bloomfield and Montefiore take it as a loose reference to the whole process of conception. Hughes, Hewitt, Lunemann (and a few oth-Hebrews 11: 11 - By Faith Sarah Received Ability 69 ers referred to in various commentaries) interpret this phrase as referring to "the founding of a posterity." Dr. Eugene A. Nida, retired Translations Department Secretary of the American Bible Society, in a personal letter to me dated 4/ 15/94, makes a further interesting comment on the implications of the principal verb '(she) received': "when you use the word A.aµjhlvro meaning 'to receive', this automatically functions as a false active, namely, a passive, so that if Sarah receives, then she, though the subject of the sentence, is also the one that experiences the receipt of the seed. She is therefore not the agent but the experi-encer of the event." See the similar note in Louw-Nida 57.125. In order to retain as referring to the father's function but still hold to the translation of the phrase as an infinitive (requiring the subject to be the same as the pre-ceding subject), several paths have been followed. One path is to regard the reference to Sarah as what Metzger calls "a Hebraic circumstantial clause." This is accepted by Hagner (as one possibility), Miller, Bruce, Lane, and by NIY, NRSV, and TEV. This alternative requires accepting the addition of crw1pcx 'barren', which, as we mentioned above, is inferior on both external and internal evidence and without which this meaning is impos-sible. Moreover, this interpretation makes the phrase a "nominative absolute," an irregular construction which has no parallel in the fine Greek style of this author and has few if any parallels in the entire New Testament Blass-Debrunner-Funk' s grammar seems to cite no similar New Testament instance. As Ellingworth comments, "Hebrews generally is one of the New Testament books least marked by direct Hebrew influence, and [moreover) the construction in question is not prominent in the LXX." If the author had intended to introduce Sarah as a subordinate grammatical element he would surely have used the common genitive absolute construction, necessarily includ-ing 'barren' and almost certainly including as well the genitive of the poorly-supported (nominative) participle oucrcx 'being': i.e., (or the indeclinable form "Sarah herself being barren" (or possibly a clause of concession with Et lCCXt and the indicative mood). Ellingworth indicates approval of this point of view ("Greenlee argues, correctly if perhaps too absolutely") as I stated it in a previous but less-developed article,' although he finally accepts another alternative (see the following para-graph) as preferable. David Alan Black observes, "Another phraseological feature of Hebrews is the frequent use of the genitive absolute," and he goes on to quote two rather complicated instances of this construction in Heb. 4: I and 9: 15.' In other words, the assumption of a nominative absolute construction here is nearly impossible for more than one reason. Others accept the addition of crtElj)CX 'barren' and resort to assuming (pointing to the common omission of the iota-subscript from uncial mss.l that the phrase concerning Sarah, instead of being nominative is the dative lCCXt CXUtTJ (or the indeclinable crtElj)(X "together with Sarah barren herself also." This alternative (with or without crtElj)(X 'barren') is followed by Ellingworth, Hagner (as one possibility), Morris, and Lenski. This involves assuming the dative case instead of the nominative with no support from any reported ms., as Montefiore notes, nor by any ancient writer including the Greek Fathers, as Hughes states. Moreover, the author could have prefixed the preposition cruv 'together with' before lCcXt to make this meaning clear even without the iota-subscript. Granted, the 70 Greenlee author does not use this preposition elsewhere; but it was surely in his vocabulary. And if an early scribe had felt that the phrase should be taken as a dative case he could easily have inserted aUv. Still others have even resorted to suggesting, with absolutely no manuscript support. that the reference to Sarah was not a pan of the original text and was added by later scribes. Those cited (but without approval) as favoring this manner of disposing of the problem instead of solving it (1) include Windisch and Zuntz (mentioned by Ellingwonh and Hughes). Field (by Ellingwonh and Moffatt). and Loisy (by Ellingwonhl. The four preceding paragraphs refer to attempts, which I believe are simply "'counsels of desperation," to resolve the problem of this verse. Moreover, I am confident that they are not necessary. There is apparently virtually no indication that this phrase caused prob-lems for early scribes or the ancient writers, although Ellingwonh seems to indicate possi-ble questions by Chrysostom and Galen. If the early scribes had felt a difficulty here, they could easily have changed KmctJ3oAtjv to A.l'Jµ\jlt<; 'receiving' or a similar word. The solution, 1 feel sure, is to be found in the proper translation of this troublesome prepositional phrase, el<; KctmJ3oA.i]v cmtpµmoi;, which is "for (the purpose ofl deposition of seed." This translation leaves the subject of KmctJ3oAijv open, to be determined by the context and not limited to being the same as the subject of the verb eA.aJ3ev 'received'. Consider, e.g., Matt. 3: 1 1, in which john the Baptist states, eyro µ£v iiµfu; J3wn\l;ro .. e\i; µnci.voiav "I baptize you ... for repentance," but it obviously was not john who was to repent. KmaJ3oAtjv, moreover, refers to the fad of 'deposition', not to the process. If, then, could refer to the wife's function, as some authorities mentioned above assume, then the phrase would naturally mean "for the deposition of seed (by Sarah)." If, on the other hand, ro1aJ30A.tjv refers to the husband's function, which is much more probable, then the phrase means "for the deposition of seed (in Sarah's body by Abraham)." The author did not need to name either Sarah or Abraham overtly, since it was clear who the participants were. The above interpretation is followed by Alford, who indicates that the phrase implies giving to Sarah the power "to fructify seed deposed." He further states, "No Greek father, no ancient version, dreamt of any other meaning." Moffatt agrees, stating, "The general idea is plain .. . i.e. for Abraham the male to do the work of generation upon her." Dods implies agreement by pointing out that if the preposition el<; is taken in the sense of "'as regards' or 'in connection with' or 'with a view to', the difficulty disappears" concerning the meaning of KmctJ3o),,tjv. With this interpretation, it follows, of course, that the referent in the rest of the verse is Sarah; it is presumably she who is said to be rrapix Kmpov "beyond the normal age" (although it could refer to both Sarah and Abraham) and it is she who itt<HOV i]ytjcrmo 1ov eirayyeiA.ci.µevov "considered the one having promised to be faithful." Perhaps a word should be said about the return to Abraham as subject in the follow-ing verse. As I said earlier, the Kcit mhtj 'herself also' indicates that Sarah is mentioned not as another in the sequence of heroes of faith but is brought in as pan of the discus-sion of Abraham, since of course she was a necessary participant in the event; so to con-tinue in v. 12 with Abraham as subject is completely reasonable. Hebrews 11: 11 - By Faith Sarah Received Ability 71 In summary, then, I maintain that both internal and external evidence support the shorter text, Kat auti] i:cippa 'Sarah herself also' (without O"tftpa 'barren'), as the origi-nal. This makes it impossible to interpret the phrase as a concession. Even if atflj)a 'bar-ren' is accepted, the nominative case must be read, which clearly shows that the subject is Sarah. To assume the dative case or to assume that the reference to Sarah was not origi-nal, as we stated above, is totally without support. In other words, the full verse is clear and unequivocal: "By faith Sarah herself also received ability for the deposition of seed [in her body by Abraham], even beyond (her/their) normal age, since she considered the one having promised to be faithful." No TES I. "Abraham's Faith or Sarah's-Heb. 11: 11," Notes on Translation 4, I (Feb. ! 990l, pp. 37-41. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 2. In "Literary Artistry in the Epistle to the Hebrews," Filologia Neotestamentaria Vil, Mayo '94, p. 49. BIBLIOGRAPHY The following works have been consulted in connection with this paper. Leximns Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early ChrishOn Literature. Translated and adapted from the 5th ed., 1958, by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 2nd English ed., revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Lauw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Commentaries Alford, Henry. 1he Greek Testament. Vol. 4. London: Rivingtons; Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1859. Bloomfield, S.T. 1he Greek Testament, with English Notes. Vol. 2. London: Longman et al, 1839. Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Dods, Marcus. 'Tue Epistle to the Hebrews," in The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, vol. 4. New York: George H. Doran, n.d. Eltingworth, Paul. Commentary on Hebrews. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ellingworth, Paul, and Eugene A. Nida. A TranskJtor's Handbook to the Letter to the Hebrews. London, New York, Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983. Guthrie, Donald. The Lemer to the Hebrews. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, edited by Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Hagner, Donald A. Hebrews. A Good News Commentary, edited by W. Ward Gasque. San Francisco: Harper and Row, I 983. Hewitt, Thomas. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Episde to the Hebrews. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. Lane, William L. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 47 A-B. Dallas: Word, 1991. 72 Greenlee Lenski, R.C.H. lhe Interpretation of St. Paul's Episdes to the Hebrews. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966. LUnemann, Gottlieb, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated from the fourth German edition by Maurice J. Evans, with additonal notes by Timothy Dwight. Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1890. Miller, Neva F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1988. Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. The International Critical Commentary, edited by Alfred Plummer. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1924. Moll, Carl Bernhard. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, vol. 11. Translated from the second German edition by AC. Kendrick. Grand Rapids: Zondeivan, 1971. Montefiore, Hugh. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Harper's New Testament Commentaries, edited by Henry Chadwick. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964. Morris, Leon. Hebrews. lhe Expositor's Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Westcott, Brooke Foss. lhe Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Macmillan, 1909. Wilson, R. Mel. Hebrews. New Century Bible Commentary, edited by Matthew Black. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Greek Texts and Textual Commentary Aland, Barbara and Kurt, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. revised. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. GNT Aland, Barbara and Kurt, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. lhe Greek New Testament, 4th revised ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Translations KJV-771e Holy Bible. Authorized lor King James! Vmion. 1611. NAB- 711e New American Bible. Camden, New Jmey: Thomas Nelson, 1971. NASB-771e New American Standard Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Holman, 1977. NIV-771e Holy Biblec New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. NJB-771e New Jemsalem Bible. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1985. NRSV-771e Holy Bible: New Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. REB- lhe Revised English Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1989. TEV-Holv Bible: Today's English VITTion. New York: American Bible Society, 1976. TNf-lhe Translator's New Testament. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973. 

Hebrews 11: 11  By Faith Sarah Received Ability

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1309&amp;context=asburyjournal

Hebrews 11: 11 By Faith Sarah Received Ability

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Asbury Theological Seminary