The etymology of hypostasis
is ‘the act of standing under’; the derived senses are ‘military position’ (1
Sam 14.4); a ‘firm point’ which secures one’s footing (Ps 69.2); ‘foundation’
of one’s hope (Ps 38.8); ‘firm attitude’, ‘foundation’ of a building,
‘argument’ or ‘topic’ of a discussion. In the papyri (James Hope Moulton and
George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the
Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources [London, 1930], 659-60) hypostasis
has a commercial meaning: it designates a ‘title deed’ and thus also simply
‘possession’ (cf. also Deut 11.6). Philosophers, since the time of the early
Stoics, used the word for ‘underlying realty’, the ‘substance’ in
contradistinction to the apparent. In Christian theology, the term chanted form
meaning ‘essence’ to meaning ‘person’ (The Council of Nicaea treated hypostasis
as synonymous with ousia, stating that the Son is not ‘of another hypostasis
or ousia’, but of the same as that of the Father. The Second Council
of Constantinople, however, treated hypostasis as synonymous with the prosopon
and proclaimed ‘one single Godhead in three hypostasesin ēgoun prosōpois’).
In Heb 11.1 the Vulgate adopts the
thoroughly objective philosophical meaning of ‘substance’, as in Heb 1.3 and
3.14. However, Erasmus proposed the subjective meaning firmam fiduciam [firm
confidence], and many commentators, particularly Protestants, have followed
him.
In regard to the other words, elenchos,
the situation is different. This word has only an objective meaning, ‘proof’,
‘argument’ used to prove, often specifically the defence or the allegation, but
also in a more general sense. We cannot attribute to it this word the
subjective sense of ‘personal conviction’, ‘ein überführtsein’ [being convinced]. One does not find this in
any text. We must therefore hold to the objective sense. Faith is a piece of
evidence, a means to knowledge. The realities which are not see, which are not
apparent, cannot be known save by indirect means. Reason is one of those means,
faith another. Even on the human level, to believe what we are told by experts
is the usual way of coming to knowledge. There is very little that we can
verify personally. We must of necessity maintain our trust in other people.
If an objective sense is applied
to the second word in the definition, one would naturally also choose an
objective sense for the first, especially since hypostasis most commonly
has this kind of sense. If we choose a subjective sense, the definition becomes
lame. The Greek fathers in their exegesis adopted an objective sense, of a
philosophical character. Some modern exegetes similarly adopt an objective
sense. In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Helmut
Koester, at the end of a long discussion, decisively rejects the subjective
sense; he writes, ‘there can be no question but that this classical Protestant
understanding is untenable’ (Helmut Koester, ‘υποστασις’, TDNT 8.572-89, at p. 586).
(Albert Vanhoye, “The Faith of Jesus? On Hebrews 12.2: ‘Jesus, Author and
Perfector of Faith’,” in Vanhoye, A Perfect Priest: Studies in the Letter to
the Hebrews [trans. Nicholas J. Moore and Richard J. Ounsworth; Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 477; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018], 264-65)
Further Reading:
Alan
C. Mitchell on Hebrews 11:1 and ὑπόστασις