Conditional clauses and tense (Hebrews 8:4)

[ndansmith]

εἰ μὲν οὖν ἦν á¼￾πὶ γῆς, οá½￾δ’ ἂν ἦν ἱεÏ￾εÏ￾Ï‚

I ran into this while reading about the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." The producers use Hebrew 8:4 as evidence that the author of Hebrew (Barnabas of course ;-)) did not think Jesus was ever actually alive on the earth. They do not get into technical details, but I believe their argument goes as follows:

"This a second-class condition so the condition is false (at least for the sake of argument). So from the author's perspective, Jesus was never on Earth because the verb is past tense."

The NIV and most English translations I have tried translate it basically as follows:

If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.

The producers allege that this is a purposeful mis-translation.

I have not studied anything with respect to tense in conditional clauses, so I was wondering if anyone has any insight. Since the ἦν is imperfect tense its repetitive and/or progressive aspect seems to preclude the producer's argument from being true. However, I am not sure it tense necessarily denotes time in conditional clauses (particularly those which use indicative mood verbs). If I meant to say what the producers imply in English, I would use a perfect "If he had been on earth," but that option is clearly not available in Greek.

So anyway, what do you think?

[IreneY]

a) They should read the whole Hebrews. See Hebrews 8:1 for example

b) I don't think much of his style to tell you the truth (Barnabas) so you have to take into account that, frankly, to me, he is a bit of a scatterbrain when it comes to composing such an Epistle. He is going for anthithesis but I am not happy with how it all comes out.

c) I am going to be really nasty here: There were far more "documents" referring to Jesus way back then. Some people got together and decided what goes into the NT and what is to be left out, what is in "congruence" with the official dogma and what isn't. I think they would have left it out if it was REALLY saying something of the kind.

d) The way I read it it's translated very well. Second class condition is not "false" it is "unreal", something that is not happening. If I want to say that my grandpa, if alive today, he would have been a super-model (honestly, he was so handsome you wouldn't believe it) I would use second class condition. That doesn't mean my grandpa wasn't alive (I'm here aren't I?); it just means he isn't alive now.

e) I would very much like to see how they explain Hebrews 8:9

ΧÏ￾ιστὸς δὲ παÏ￾αγενόμενος á¼€Ï￾χιεÏ￾εὺς τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν διὰ τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέÏ￾ας σκηνῆς, οá½￾ χειÏ￾οποιήτου, τοῦτ' ἔστιν οá½￾ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως, 12 οá½￾δὲ δι' αἵματος Ï„Ï￾άγων καὶ μόσχων, διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος εἰσῆλθεν á¼￾φάπαξ εἰς Ï„á½° á¼￾για, αἰωνίαν λύτÏ￾ωσιν εὑÏ￾άμενος

[modus.irrealis]

"This a second-class condition so the condition is false (at least for the sake of argument). So from the author's perspective, Jesus was never on Earth because the verb is past tense."

The funny thing is that this argument would also apply to English, where you have the past (subjunctive) "were" (and even "would" is historically a past form, I believe). For Greek, I'd say that basically in these unreal contexts, the imperfect represents present time and the aorist past time, so I agree with Irene that that English translation is perfectly fine.

(Of course, this just shows that Greek had no tense at all )

[Paul]

The producers should learn some Greek.

The "past tense" of εἰμί is here used to make unambiguous the verb's progressive (imperfective) aspect. A respected translator of Aristotle makes just this case when he renders the Stagirite's technical formula τί ἦν εἶναι. This does not mean "what it was to be." Rather, the aspectual force of the imperfect ("to continue being, keep on being") in combination with an infinitive of purpose yields, literally, "what continues to be in order to be."

The same argument applies to the ἦν in the protasis of Hebrews 8:4, giving "if he continued being on earth,...".

Thus the argument the producers make from this 2nd class condition misstates the condition. The condition is not that Jesus was never on the earth, it is that Jesus did not continue to be on the earth.

Cordially,

Paul

[Chris Weimer]

Please, I beg of you, not to take Brian Fleming and his group representative of atheists everywhere. So many of us disagree wholeheartedly with that movie and so much of what they stand for.

[ndansmith]

Please, I beg of you, not to take Brian Fleming and his group representative of atheists everywhere. So many of us disagree wholeheartedly with that movie and so much of what they stand for. :(

As a Christian I am shocked that many vocal atheists completely miss the best arguments against the existence of God. Don't worry, I knew these guys were dorks and I don't regard all atheists the same way.

[joja]

Re: Hebrews 8:9

Hebrews chapter 8:9
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the
land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant,
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind,
and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they
shall be to me a people:
-----------------------------------------------------------------


"Blood is Life in the New Testament, see, Life is from the Blood of the Lamb,
which means the New Testament, new covenant.
That, God, "After those days will I write My laws upon the fleshly tables
of their heart." See? See? "Not upon the stony tables, and a lamb's blood,
which you had to say, 'Yeah, I--I got the blood over here, now what does
it say do?' But upon the tables of your heart, see, the Spirit covenant
will I make with the people." - William M. Branham