Hebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Wed May 26 21:18:19 EDT 1999

 

Apology for Petition Hebrews 1:8 At 07:42 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote:>Shouldn’t Hebrews 1:8 be translated “God is your throne” and not “Your>throne, O’ God”?i take it as a nominative of exclamation, something like-“God, your throne, is forever! It almost sounds like throne is accuasative-but its not- it is an exclamation. Almost like our “O God, you aresmart…” etc.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Apology for PetitionHebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Wed May 26 22:37:04 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:8 PRODROMOS in Heb. 6:20 >At 07:42 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote:> >>Shouldn’t Hebrews 1:8 be translated “God is your throne” and not “Your>>throne, O’ God”?> >i take it as a nominative of exclamation, something like->“God, your throne, is forever! It almost sounds like throne is accuasative->but its not- it is an exclamation. Almost like our “O God, you are>smart…” etc.> The editors of the UBS4 text think that hO QEOS is nominative used forvocative (in spite of the fact that most masculine sing. nouns have aseparate vocative form) and then hO QRONOS is the subject of the understoodverb ESTIN. That matches the parallel which follows also with an understoodverb. There are a number of places where the nominative is used in the NT(John 19:3, 20:28, etc) for the vocative and, of course, other thanmasculine sing. all other nouns use the first inflected form for bothnominative and vocative.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

Hebrews 1:8PRODROMOS in Heb. 6:20

Hebrews 1:8 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Wed May 26 22:37:04 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:8 PRODROMOS in Heb. 6:20 >At 07:42 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote:> >>Shouldn’t Hebrews 1:8 be translated “God is your throne” and not “Your>>throne, O’ God”?> >i take it as a nominative of exclamation, something like->“God, your throne, is forever! It almost sounds like throne is accuasative->but its not- it is an exclamation. Almost like our “O God, you are>smart…” etc.> The editors of the UBS4 text think that hO QEOS is nominative used forvocative (in spite of the fact that most masculine sing. nouns have aseparate vocative form) and then hO QRONOS is the subject of the understoodverb ESTIN. That matches the parallel which follows also with an understoodverb. There are a number of places where the nominative is used in the NT(John 19:3, 20:28, etc) for the vocative and, of course, other thanmasculine sing. all other nouns use the first inflected form for bothnominative and vocative.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

Hebrews 1:8PRODROMOS in Heb. 6:20

Hebrews 1:8 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Wed May 26 21:18:19 EDT 1999

 

Apology for Petition Hebrews 1:8 At 07:42 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote:>Shouldn’t Hebrews 1:8 be translated “God is your throne” and not “Your>throne, O’ God”?i take it as a nominative of exclamation, something like-“God, your throne, is forever! It almost sounds like throne is accuasative-but its not- it is an exclamation. Almost like our “O God, you aresmart…” etc.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Apology for PetitionHebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Thu May 27 11:38:49 EDT 1999

 

hOTI clause Acts 17:18 AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE Dear Listmembers,I understand Heb. 1:8 to be a subject nominative. In the context ofPsalm 45, the king of Judah is being addressed. If the passage were tobe construed as a vocative or nominative of address, then the king ofJudah would be equated with YHWH. While it is possible that a kingcould be called ELOHIM in the OT, it seems best to construe Heb. 1:8 as”God is your throne.”Edgar— Jim West <jwest at highland.net> wrote:> At 07:42 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote:> > >Shouldn’t Hebrews 1:8 be translated “God is your> throne” and not “Your> >throne, O’ God”?> > i take it as a nominative of exclamation, something> like-> “God, your throne, is forever! It almost sounds> like throne is accuasative-> but its not- it is an exclamation. Almost like our> “O God, you are> smart…” etc.> > Best,> > Jim> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> email- jwest at highland.net> web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as:> questioning1 at yahoo.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to> subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > ===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

hOTI clause Acts 17:18AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE

Hebrews 1:8 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Thu May 27 11:38:49 EDT 1999

 

hOTI clause Acts 17:18 AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE Dear Listmembers,I understand Heb. 1:8 to be a subject nominative. In the context ofPsalm 45, the king of Judah is being addressed. If the passage were tobe construed as a vocative or nominative of address, then the king ofJudah would be equated with YHWH. While it is possible that a kingcould be called ELOHIM in the OT, it seems best to construe Heb. 1:8 as”God is your throne.”Edgar— Jim West <jwest at highland.net> wrote:> At 07:42 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote:> > >Shouldn’t Hebrews 1:8 be translated “God is your> throne” and not “Your> >throne, O’ God”?> > i take it as a nominative of exclamation, something> like-> “God, your throne, is forever! It almost sounds> like throne is accuasative-> but its not- it is an exclamation. Almost like our> “O God, you are> smart…” etc.> > Best,> > Jim> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> email- jwest at highland.net> web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as:> questioning1 at yahoo.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to> subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > ===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

hOTI clause Acts 17:18AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE

Hebrews 1:8 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Thu May 27 14:45:12 EDT 1999

 

AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE Hebrews 1:8 Edgar Foster wrote;> >I understand Heb. 1:8 to be a subject nominative. In the context of>Psalm 45, the king of Judah is being addressed. If the passage were to>be construed as a vocative or nominative of address, then the king of>Judah would be equated with YHWH. While it is possible that a king>could be called ELOHIM in the OT, it seems best to construe Heb. 1:8 as>“God is your throne.”> The one addressed, as far as the writer of Hebrews sees it, is the Son. Hetakes the Psalm as Messianic, so the problem would not exist for him. Ifail to see how taking God as subject or predicate nominative would bebetter (theologically) than the way the UBS editors take it, as vocative.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVEHebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu May 27 15:07:18 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:8 Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type > Shouldn’t Hebrews 1:8 be translated “God is your throne” and not “Your> throne, O’ God”? This is a quotation from Psalm 45<44>:6, of course, which reads in the LXX hO QRONOS SOU hO QEOS EIS AIWNA AIWNOS… compare hO QRONOS SOU hO QEOS EIS AIWNA TOU AIWNOS… in Hebrews 1:8. Compare also hETOIMOS hO QRONOS SOU APO TOTE, APO TOU AIWNOS SU EI, Psalm 93<92>:2. The referent of SOU in Psalm 93<92>:1 is clearly hO KURIOS (for YHWH). In Psalm 45<44>6 the referent is hO QEOS; ‘SOU hO QEOS’. Metzger comments s.v. SOU: “Although the reading AUTOU, which has early and good support (P46 Aleph B), may seem to be preferable because it differs from the reading of the Old Testament passage that is being quoted (Ps 45:6 [=LXX 44:6] SOU), to which, on this point of view, presumably the mass of New Testament witnesses have been assimilated, a majority of the Committee was more impressed (a) by the weight and variety of the external evidence supporting SOU, and (b) by the internal difficulty of construing AUTOU. Thus, if one reads AUTOU the words hO QEOS must be taken, not as a vocative (2) (an interpretation that is preferred by most exegetes), but as the subject (or predicate nominative), (3) an interpretation that is generally regarded as highly improbable. Even if one assumes that KAI, which is absent from the Hebrew and the Septuagint of the Psalm, was inserted by the author with the set purpose of making two separate quotations, with verse 8a in the second person and 8b in the third person, (4) the strangeness of the shift in persons is only slightly reduced. (2) “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of his kingdom.” (3) “God is thy throne (or, thy throne is God) for ever and ever, and the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of his [i.e. God’s] kingdom.” (4) “‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,’ and ‘the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of his kingdom.'” (BM Metzger, /A Textual Commentary on the GNT/, 2nd Ed., UBS, 1994, page 593). ‘God is thy throne’ reminds me of the child’s question, “Mummy, does God shake hands with his left hand?”. Mummy replied, “I don’t know, darling; why do you ask?” “Because it says in the Apostles’ Creed that Jesus ‘ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father’. So if Jesus is sitting on his right hand, he will only have his left hand free, won’t he?”. 😎 ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

Hebrews 1:8Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type

Hebrews 1:8 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu May 27 15:07:18 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:8 Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type > Shouldn’t Hebrews 1:8 be translated “God is your throne” and not “Your> throne, O’ God”? This is a quotation from Psalm 45<44>:6, of course, which reads in the LXX hO QRONOS SOU hO QEOS EIS AIWNA AIWNOS… compare hO QRONOS SOU hO QEOS EIS AIWNA TOU AIWNOS… in Hebrews 1:8. Compare also hETOIMOS hO QRONOS SOU APO TOTE, APO TOU AIWNOS SU EI, Psalm 93<92>:2. The referent of SOU in Psalm 93<92>:1 is clearly hO KURIOS (for YHWH). In Psalm 45<44>6 the referent is hO QEOS; ‘SOU hO QEOS’. Metzger comments s.v. SOU: “Although the reading AUTOU, which has early and good support (P46 Aleph B), may seem to be preferable because it differs from the reading of the Old Testament passage that is being quoted (Ps 45:6 [=LXX 44:6] SOU), to which, on this point of view, presumably the mass of New Testament witnesses have been assimilated, a majority of the Committee was more impressed (a) by the weight and variety of the external evidence supporting SOU, and (b) by the internal difficulty of construing AUTOU. Thus, if one reads AUTOU the words hO QEOS must be taken, not as a vocative (2) (an interpretation that is preferred by most exegetes), but as the subject (or predicate nominative), (3) an interpretation that is generally regarded as highly improbable. Even if one assumes that KAI, which is absent from the Hebrew and the Septuagint of the Psalm, was inserted by the author with the set purpose of making two separate quotations, with verse 8a in the second person and 8b in the third person, (4) the strangeness of the shift in persons is only slightly reduced. (2) “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of his kingdom.” (3) “God is thy throne (or, thy throne is God) for ever and ever, and the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of his [i.e. God’s] kingdom.” (4) “‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,’ and ‘the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of his kingdom.'” (BM Metzger, /A Textual Commentary on the GNT/, 2nd Ed., UBS, 1994, page 593). ‘God is thy throne’ reminds me of the child’s question, “Mummy, does God shake hands with his left hand?”. Mummy replied, “I don’t know, darling; why do you ask?” “Because it says in the Apostles’ Creed that Jesus ‘ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father’. So if Jesus is sitting on his right hand, he will only have his left hand free, won’t he?”. 😎 ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

Hebrews 1:8Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type

Hebrews 1:8 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Thu May 27 14:45:12 EDT 1999

 

AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE Hebrews 1:8 Edgar Foster wrote;> >I understand Heb. 1:8 to be a subject nominative. In the context of>Psalm 45, the king of Judah is being addressed. If the passage were to>be construed as a vocative or nominative of address, then the king of>Judah would be equated with YHWH. While it is possible that a king>could be called ELOHIM in the OT, it seems best to construe Heb. 1:8 as>“God is your throne.”> The one addressed, as far as the writer of Hebrews sees it, is the Son. Hetakes the Psalm as Messianic, so the problem would not exist for him. Ifail to see how taking God as subject or predicate nominative would bebetter (theologically) than the way the UBS editors take it, as vocative.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVEHebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 31 17:49:37 EDT 1999

 

THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1 Dative of Advantage or Purpose? EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? —Carlton Winbery wrote:>Edgar Foster wrote;>I understand Heb. 1:8 to be a subject nominative. In the context ofPsalm 45, the king of Judah is being addressed. If the passage were tobe construed as a vocative or nominative of address, then the king ofJudah would be equated with YHWH. While it is possible that a kingcould be called ELOHIM in the OT, it seems best to construe Heb. 1:8as “God is your throne.”<>The one addressed, as far as the writer of Hebrews sees it, is theSon. He takes the Psalm as Messianic, so the problem would not existfor him. I fail to see how taking God as subject or predicatenominative would be better (theologically) than the way the UBSeditors take it, as vocative.<Carlton,Your observations basically center around one’s hermeneutic andtheology. I have no problem viewing Ps. 45 as Messianic, but thatdoesn’t mean that I have to ignore the historical background of thetext. I also do not believe that the writer of Hebrews was obliviousto the Sitz Im Leben of Ps. 45 either. If he did indeed know that thepsalm originally applied to a Judean king, then I have a hard timecomprehending how he could have employed a nominative of address atHeb. 1:8. Conversely, if the author did utilize the nominative ofaddress in 1:8, then he could well have used the term QEOS in a broadand genric sense. But at this point, we move into the theolgical.On your last point, whether the vocative or nominative is used doesmake a difference. “The nominative hO QEOS in Hebrews 1:8 has been interpreted severalways. Most interpret it as a nominative of address: hO QRONOS SOU hOQEOS EIS TON AIWNA TOU AIWNOS (Your throne, O God, is for ever andever). This interpretation attributes deity to the Son” (Richard Young12). Alternately, Westcott argues that the king of Judah’s–or theMessiah’s– throne is founded upon QEOS.Regards,Edgar ==Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1 Dative of Advantage or Purpose?EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16?

Hebrews 1:8 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 31 17:49:37 EDT 1999

 

THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1 Dative of Advantage or Purpose? EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? —Carlton Winbery wrote:>Edgar Foster wrote;>I understand Heb. 1:8 to be a subject nominative. In the context ofPsalm 45, the king of Judah is being addressed. If the passage were tobe construed as a vocative or nominative of address, then the king ofJudah would be equated with YHWH. While it is possible that a kingcould be called ELOHIM in the OT, it seems best to construe Heb. 1:8as “God is your throne.”<>The one addressed, as far as the writer of Hebrews sees it, is theSon. He takes the Psalm as Messianic, so the problem would not existfor him. I fail to see how taking God as subject or predicatenominative would be better (theologically) than the way the UBSeditors take it, as vocative.<Carlton,Your observations basically center around one’s hermeneutic andtheology. I have no problem viewing Ps. 45 as Messianic, but thatdoesn’t mean that I have to ignore the historical background of thetext. I also do not believe that the writer of Hebrews was obliviousto the Sitz Im Leben of Ps. 45 either. If he did indeed know that thepsalm originally applied to a Judean king, then I have a hard timecomprehending how he could have employed a nominative of address atHeb. 1:8. Conversely, if the author did utilize the nominative ofaddress in 1:8, then he could well have used the term QEOS in a broadand genric sense. But at this point, we move into the theolgical.On your last point, whether the vocative or nominative is used doesmake a difference. “The nominative hO QEOS in Hebrews 1:8 has been interpreted severalways. Most interpret it as a nominative of address: hO QRONOS SOU hOQEOS EIS TON AIWNA TOU AIWNOS (Your throne, O God, is for ever andever). This interpretation attributes deity to the Son” (Richard Young12). Alternately, Westcott argues that the king of Judah’s–or theMessiah’s– throne is founded upon QEOS.Regards,Edgar ==Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1 Dative of Advantage or Purpose?EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16?

Heb 1:8 Tony Costa tmcos at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 6 17:23:39 EDT 1999

 

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Heb 1:8 I had a question re: Hebrews 1:8, hO QRONOS SOU HO QEOS, (which is a quotation from Psalm 45:6). Is this verse in the vocative ? Most translations read it as “Thy throne O God is forever and ever”, while others like Goodspeed and Moffat’s translations have “God is your throne forever and ever”. Yor insight would be appreciated. Tony Costa, B.A. University of Toronto Toronto, CANADA______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

 

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)Heb 1:8

Heb 1:8 Tony Costa tmcos at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 6 17:23:39 EDT 1999

 

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48) Heb 1:8 I had a question re: Hebrews 1:8, hO QRONOS SOU HO QEOS, (which is a quotation from Psalm 45:6). Is this verse in the vocative ? Most translations read it as “Thy throne O God is forever and ever”, while others like Goodspeed and Moffat’s translations have “God is your throne forever and ever”. Yor insight would be appreciated. Tony Costa, B.A. University of Toronto Toronto, CANADA______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

 

Hair-splitting (was Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48)Heb 1:8

Heb 1:8 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Tue Jul 6 20:56:05 EDT 1999

 

Heb 1:8 Moffats Translation At 02:23 PM 7/6/99 -0700, you wrote:> I had a question re: Hebrews 1:8, hO QRONOS SOU HO QEOS, (which is a >quotation from Psalm 45:6). Is this verse in the vocative ? Most >translations read it as “Thy throne O God is forever and ever”, while others >like Goodspeed and Moffat’s translations have “God is your throne forever >and ever”. Yor insight would be appreciated.The ambiguity arises, I think, because the greek will bear both of theserenderings equally well. One of the funny things about learning Greek isthat one cannot always know the mind of the author just because one knowsthe grammatical construction he seems to have used. That said, I think the”ho theos” is vocative. Giving us something like “Your throne, God, isforever…”best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Heb 1:8Moffats Translation

Heb 1:8 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Tue Jul 6 20:56:05 EDT 1999

 

Heb 1:8 Moffats Translation At 02:23 PM 7/6/99 -0700, you wrote:> I had a question re: Hebrews 1:8, hO QRONOS SOU HO QEOS, (which is a >quotation from Psalm 45:6). Is this verse in the vocative ? Most >translations read it as “Thy throne O God is forever and ever”, while others >like Goodspeed and Moffat’s translations have “God is your throne forever >and ever”. Yor insight would be appreciated.The ambiguity arises, I think, because the greek will bear both of theserenderings equally well. One of the funny things about learning Greek isthat one cannot always know the mind of the author just because one knowsthe grammatical construction he seems to have used. That said, I think the”ho theos” is vocative. Giving us something like “Your throne, God, isforever…”best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Heb 1:8Moffats Translation

Heb 1:8 Wes Williams WesWilliams at usa.net
Wed Jul 7 09:49:12 EDT 1999

 

digest: June 12, 1999 Teach Yourself… Tony Costa wrote:<< I had a question re: Hebrews 1:8, hO QRONOS SOU HO QEOS, (which is aquotation from Psalm 45:6). Is this verse in the vocative ? Mosttranslations read it as “Thy throne O God is forever and ever”, while otherslike Goodspeed and Moffat’s translations have “God is your throne foreverand ever”. Yor insight would be appreciated. Tony Costa, B.A. University of Toronto Toronto, CANADA>> Dear Tony,Here is a post from several years ago on that reflects Westcott’sexegesis on the passage. On a lexical level HO QEOS can be vocative,subject, or predicate nominative (or even appositive?). Westcott concludesit is best to not take it as vocative because of the reasons he statesbelow. Another point frequently not considered is that God is not the onewho is being addressed. Rather, the one being addressed is one who isanointed by God (cf. v.9 God, *your* God anointed *you*). In harmony withthis, some translations read “God is your throne” or “Your throne is God.”Unfortunately I no longer have the link and the sunsite archives appear tohave expired. I can look it up if you want the entire thread.Sincerely,Wes Williams__________________Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation taken from Psalm 45:6, 7. When this entirePsalm is considered, it is evident that the king mentioned in verse 1 whohas God’s blessing is a different one than God himself who does theanointing, as shown in verse seven. However, it is mentioned in this sameverse that God has anointed this one with the oil of exultation more thanhis partners. If the Son is the one addressed here as God, then who are thepartners that “God, _your_ God,” anointed his King-son to excel in hisgladness? At Hebrews 1:9, when many translations read “God, your God,anointed you,” clearly the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but theone who worships God and the one who is anointed by him.Also the context shows that the contrast between Hebrews verses 7 and 8 isnot to _essential being_ but to _function_. This fact is brought out in thatChrist, and not the angels, was bestowed divine kingship, as stated inverses 8 and 9. Thus James Moffatt’s translation reads at Hebrews 1:8, 9:”God is thy throne for ever and ever, and thy royal sceptre is the sceptreof equity; thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thyGod, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades.”Commenting on Hebrews 1:8, 9, B. F. Westcott wrote in his work “The Epistleto the Hebrews,” London, 1892, pp. 25, 26:”ho thronos sou ho theos…dia touto…ho theos, ho theos sou…It is notnecessary to discuss here in detail the construction of the original wordsof the Psalm. The LXX admits of two renderings: ho theos can be taken as avocative in both cases (_Thy throne, O God,… therefore, O God, ThyGod…_) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the firstcase (_God is Thy throne,_ or _Thy throne is God…_), or in apposition toho theos sou in the second case (_Therefore God, even Thy God…_). The onlyimportant variation noted in the other Greek versions is that of Aquila, whogave the vocative thee in the first clause (Hieron. _Ep._ lxv. _ad Princ._13) and, as it appears, also in the second (Field, _Hexapla_ ad loc._). Itis scarcely possible that ‘elohim in the original can be addressed to theking. The presumption therefore is against the belief that ho theos is avocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the firstclause the rendering: _God is Thy throne_ (or, _Thy throne is God_), thatis, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock’; and to take hotheos as in apposition in the second clause.”The phrase ‘God is Thy throne’ is not indeed found elsewhere, but it is inno way more strange than Psalm lxxi. 3 _[Lord] be Thou to me a rock ofhabitation…Thou art my rock and my fortress._ Is xxvi. 4 (R.V.) _In theLORD JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock._ Ps xc. 1 _Lord, Thou hast been ourdwelling-place._ Ps xci. 1 _He that dwelleth in the secret place of the MostHigh…_ v. 2 _I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress,_ v.9; Deut. xxxiii. 27 _The eternal God is thy dwelling-place._ Comp. Is. xxii.23.”For the general thought compare Zech. xii. 8. This interpretation isrequired if we adopt the reading autou for sou.”It is commonly supposed that the force of the quotation lies in the divinetitle (ho theos) which, as it is held, is applied to the Son. It seemshowever from the whole form of the argument to lie rather in the descriptionwhich is given of the Son’s office and endowment. The angels are subject toconstant change, He has a dominion for ever and ever; they work throughmaterial powers, He–the Incarnate Son–fulfils a moral sovereignty and iscrown with unique joy. Nor could the reader forget the later teaching of thePsalm on the Royal Bride and the Royal Race. In whatever way then ho theosbe taken, the quotation establishes the conclusion which the writer whishesto draw as to the essential difference of the Son and the angels. Indeed itmight appear to many that the direct application of the divine Name[actually divine title] to the Son would obscure the thought.”

 

digest: June 12, 1999Teach Yourself…

Heb 1:8 Wes Williams WesWilliams at usa.net
Wed Jul 7 09:49:12 EDT 1999

 

digest: June 12, 1999 Teach Yourself… Tony Costa wrote:<< I had a question re: Hebrews 1:8, hO QRONOS SOU HO QEOS, (which is aquotation from Psalm 45:6). Is this verse in the vocative ? Mosttranslations read it as “Thy throne O God is forever and ever”, while otherslike Goodspeed and Moffat’s translations have “God is your throne foreverand ever”. Yor insight would be appreciated. Tony Costa, B.A. University of Toronto Toronto, CANADA>> Dear Tony,Here is a post from several years ago on that reflects Westcott’sexegesis on the passage. On a lexical level HO QEOS can be vocative,subject, or predicate nominative (or even appositive?). Westcott concludesit is best to not take it as vocative because of the reasons he statesbelow. Another point frequently not considered is that God is not the onewho is being addressed. Rather, the one being addressed is one who isanointed by God (cf. v.9 God, *your* God anointed *you*). In harmony withthis, some translations read “God is your throne” or “Your throne is God.”Unfortunately I no longer have the link and the sunsite archives appear tohave expired. I can look it up if you want the entire thread.Sincerely,Wes Williams__________________Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation taken from Psalm 45:6, 7. When this entirePsalm is considered, it is evident that the king mentioned in verse 1 whohas God’s blessing is a different one than God himself who does theanointing, as shown in verse seven. However, it is mentioned in this sameverse that God has anointed this one with the oil of exultation more thanhis partners. If the Son is the one addressed here as God, then who are thepartners that “God, _your_ God,” anointed his King-son to excel in hisgladness? At Hebrews 1:9, when many translations read “God, your God,anointed you,” clearly the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but theone who worships God and the one who is anointed by him.Also the context shows that the contrast between Hebrews verses 7 and 8 isnot to _essential being_ but to _function_. This fact is brought out in thatChrist, and not the angels, was bestowed divine kingship, as stated inverses 8 and 9. Thus James Moffatt’s translation reads at Hebrews 1:8, 9:”God is thy throne for ever and ever, and thy royal sceptre is the sceptreof equity; thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thyGod, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades.”Commenting on Hebrews 1:8, 9, B. F. Westcott wrote in his work “The Epistleto the Hebrews,” London, 1892, pp. 25, 26:”ho thronos sou ho theos…dia touto…ho theos, ho theos sou…It is notnecessary to discuss here in detail the construction of the original wordsof the Psalm. The LXX admits of two renderings: ho theos can be taken as avocative in both cases (_Thy throne, O God,… therefore, O God, ThyGod…_) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the firstcase (_God is Thy throne,_ or _Thy throne is God…_), or in apposition toho theos sou in the second case (_Therefore God, even Thy God…_). The onlyimportant variation noted in the other Greek versions is that of Aquila, whogave the vocative thee in the first clause (Hieron. _Ep._ lxv. _ad Princ._13) and, as it appears, also in the second (Field, _Hexapla_ ad loc._). Itis scarcely possible that ‘elohim in the original can be addressed to theking. The presumption therefore is against the belief that ho theos is avocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the firstclause the rendering: _God is Thy throne_ (or, _Thy throne is God_), thatis, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock’; and to take hotheos as in apposition in the second clause.”The phrase ‘God is Thy throne’ is not indeed found elsewhere, but it is inno way more strange than Psalm lxxi. 3 _[Lord] be Thou to me a rock ofhabitation…Thou art my rock and my fortress._ Is xxvi. 4 (R.V.) _In theLORD JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock._ Ps xc. 1 _Lord, Thou hast been ourdwelling-place._ Ps xci. 1 _He that dwelleth in the secret place of the MostHigh…_ v. 2 _I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress,_ v.9; Deut. xxxiii. 27 _The eternal God is thy dwelling-place._ Comp. Is. xxii.23.”For the general thought compare Zech. xii. 8. This interpretation isrequired if we adopt the reading autou for sou.”It is commonly supposed that the force of the quotation lies in the divinetitle (ho theos) which, as it is held, is applied to the Son. It seemshowever from the whole form of the argument to lie rather in the descriptionwhich is given of the Son’s office and endowment. The angels are subject toconstant change, He has a dominion for ever and ever; they work throughmaterial powers, He–the Incarnate Son–fulfils a moral sovereignty and iscrown with unique joy. Nor could the reader forget the later teaching of thePsalm on the Royal Bride and the Royal Race. In whatever way then ho theosbe taken, the quotation establishes the conclusion which the writer whishesto draw as to the essential difference of the Son and the angels. Indeed itmight appear to many that the direct application of the divine Name[actually divine title] to the Son would obscure the thought.”

 

digest: June 12, 1999Teach Yourself…

Heb 2:18 PEPONQEN, PEIRASQEIS Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Fri Jul 30 08:47:18 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 2:10 DIA (repentance) Heb 2:18 PEPONQEN, PEIRASQEIS Hebr 2:18 EN HWi GAR PEPONQEN AUTOS PEIRASQEISI am not sure that I have grasped the aspect of PEIRASQEIS in combination with the perfect verb PEPONQEN, and I am not sure what the force of PEIRASMOS is in this context. PEPONQEN is pretty clear here, but does PEIRASQEIS mean “having been tempted” in this context, e.g. “he has suffered, having been tempted”? I assume that the event time of PEIRASQEIS is the same as that of PEPONQEN, so that the suffering and testing occured at the same time, that the perfect focuses on the resulting state, and that PEIRASQEIS focuses on the time of the testing itself? Is the function of the phrase to bring out both the state of having been tested and the time of testing/temptation, saying that both knowing what it is to be tested and having made it through are reasons that Jesus can help those of us who are tested?Jonathan–Jonathan RobieR&D Fellow, Software AGjonathan.robie at sagus.com

 

Hebrews 2:10 DIA (repentance)Heb 2:18 PEPONQEN, PEIRASQEIS

[] Hebrews 1:8 thanks Mark Saward msaward at bigpond.net.au
Sun Jul 4 22:07:24 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 16:34 [] re: How to Define first year Greek Hi,just wanted to thank you all for the information you provided earlierbefore I unsubscribe from the list.ThanksMark Saward

 

[] Acts 16:34[] re: How to Define first year Greek
[] Hebrews 1.8 Jason BeDuhn Jason.Beduhn at NAU.EDU
Fri Jul 9 17:24:17 EDT 2004

 

[] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home [] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home Dear subscribers,I am not a member of your list. But my name has come up in a discussion of Hebrews 1.8, and I wish to set the record straight on what I have said about this verse in my book Truth in Translation. First of all, you should know that the book is about translation, not interpretation, and that all of its arguments are rooted in linguistic analysis of the original Greek of the New Testament within its literary, historical, and cultural context. It does not concern itself with theological debate over interpretation. A year or so ago, when someone brought up the book as a topic for discussion on this list, the moderators banned any such discussion, for reasons that escape me. But now Dr. Conrad, without benefit of actually reading my very short chapter on Hebrews 1.8, has objected to one sentence within that chapter that was quoted on this list, and offered an analysis at the conclusion of which he states that what I have said “will not stand as an objection to the conventional translation of Heb. 1.3” and that “BeDuhn’s claim that the conventional reading of the text is grammatically invalid just won’t hold water.”To his credit, Dr. Conrad qualifies his conclusions by stating that they apply to my position “if it has been accurately cited and in sufficient context.” I must say that it has not. Nor do I fault the individual who quoted me, because his sole purpose was to ask if the particular point I made in the one sentence (not my whole position and argument) was factually correct. Dr. Conrad certainly did not have sufficient information on my argument to gratuitiously assert that I am “unaware of the existential function of the verb EINAI in Greek” and that I “assume that all instances of the verb are copulative.” Nor was he in a position to assume that I consider the conventional reading of Heb. 1.3 to be invalid. In fact, I say in my book, “Both translations [the conventional and the one found in the NWT, as well as in notes to the NRSV and TEV] are possible, so none of the translations we are comnparing can be rejected inaccurate. We cannot settle the debate with certainty” (99) and “Let me repeat that both ways of translating Hebrews 1.8 are legitimate readings of the original Greek of the verse. There is no basis for proponents of either translation to claim that the other translation is certainly wrong. All that can be discussed is which translation is more probable” (101). I hope that is clear. I argue in the book that “God is your throne” is more probable based on the following points:Linguistic:1. preponderance of use of hO QEOS as a nominative, rather than as a vocative;2. lack of parallel to using EIS TON AIWNA as an absolute predicate phrase; preponderance of its use as modifier of other elements within the predicate;3. the existence of an alternative way to convey the vocative if it is intended.Literary:1. literary context in Hebrews fails to supply another reference to Jesus as “God”; functionality of the verse in its context without taking hO QEOS as a vocative;2. literary context of original passage in Psalm 45 shows that God is not being addressed; rather a king is being praised by cataloguing the attributes of his life in the palace.Let me add that this argument in presented in just two pages written at a popular level.Dr. Conrad has gone to the trouble of carefully investigating my statement that “There is no other example in the Bible where the expression ‘forever’ stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb ‘to be’ . . . ‘Forever’ always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb, or a predicate noun or pronoun” (99, part of Linguistic argument 2 above). He cites what he considers contrary examples, and this leads to his conclusion that my statement is in error. It is in error only in the way I sometimes let the popular level at which I am writing in the book oversimplify, namely, (a) I use “Bible” and “New Testament” interchangeably in the book, and (b) once I have given an English rendering for a Greek phrase, I use the English to stand for the referenced Greek wording. I can see now that his needs to be handled more carefully in future editions of the book. My statement, within the context of how the book is written (with the two practices of simplification I just mentioned) is correct. None of Dr. Conrad’s examples refute it, and I am surprised no one else on this list has noted that fact. In none of Dr. Conrad’s examples does the phrase EIS TON AIWNA stand alone with an explicit or implicit EINAI in the predicate. Instead, his exampled involve either the dative of possessor which the phrase complements (in the doxological formulae) or the adverbial phrase MEQ’ hUMWN, which again the phrase complements. Now we all know how easy it is to quibble about what is or is not a true parallel. But all I wish to assert here is that Dr. Conrad’s argument falls short of demonstrating a failing in mine.On the other hand, Dr. Conrad’s instincts were right, even if he did not succeed in supporting them sufficiently. That is the case because if we take the Septuagint into account, then my statement would need to be qualified. Because there, in that part of the Bible that I did not take into consideration in my analysis, we do find the phrase EIS TON AIWNA used absolutely with either explicit or implicit EINAI, namely, in Psalm 80.16 (81.15), 103.31 (104.31), 134.13 (135.13), and repeatedly in the expression “his mercy (is) forever” in Psalms 99, 105, 106, 117, 135, and 137). So this information would require me to speak here, as I do in connection with hO QEOS, of preponderance of usage rather than claiming that there are no other examples. EIS TON AIWNA usually and regularly modifies some other element of a predicate, but it can stand alone, and so this part of my argument looses much of its force. A survey of the Psalms does show, however, that the preferred way to make an existential statement about the subject with EIS TON AIWNA is with MENW (e.g., Psalms 9.8, 32.11, 88.37, 101.13, 102.9, 110.3, 110.10, 111.3, 111.9, 116.2).With that, let me just repeat that there is no objective, linguistic way to determine which of the two possible translations of Heb. 1.8 is the correct one, and one’s choice must always be qualified by this fact. I have made an argument for preferring one translation as more probable, and even with a retraction of one part of it as too sweeping an assertion, that argument is still stronger than any with which I am familiar on behalf of the other possible translation. I would be interested to hear any argument that could be made on linguistic and literary grounds for preferring the “conventional translation” to the other.best wishes,Jason BeDuhnJason BeDuhnAssociate Professor of Religious Studies, and ChairDepartment of Humanities, Arts, and ReligionNorthern Arizona University

 

[] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home[] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home

[] Hebrews 1.8 George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Fri Jul 9 19:31:49 EDT 2004

 

[] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home [] Hebrews 1.8 On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:24:17 -0700 Jason BeDuhn <Jason.Beduhn at NAU.EDU>writes:> Dear subscribers,> > I am not a member of your list. But my name has come up in a > discussion of > Hebrews 1.8, and I wish to set the record straight on what I have > said about > this verse in my book Truth in Translation. First of all, you > should know > that the book is about translation, not interpretation, and that all > of its > arguments are rooted in linguistic analysis of the original Greek of > the New > Testament within its literary, historical, and cultural context. It > does not > concern itself with theological debate over interpretation. A year > or so ago, > when someone brought up the book as a topic for discussion on this > list, the > moderators banned any such discussion, for reasons that escape me. > But now > Dr. Conrad, without benefit of actually reading my very short > chapter on > Hebrews 1.8, has objected to one sentence within that chapter that > was quoted > on this list, and offered an analysis at the conclusion of which he > states > that what I have said “will not stand as an objection to the > conventional > translation of Heb. 1.3″ and that “BeDuhn’s claim that the > conventional > reading of the text is grammatically invalid just won’t hold > water.”> > To his credit, Dr. Conrad qualifies his conclusions by stating that > they apply > to my position “if it has been accurately cited and in sufficient > context.” I > must say that it has not. Nor do I fault the individual who quoted > me, > because his sole purpose was to ask if the particular point I made > in the one > sentence (not my whole position and argument) was factually correct. > Dr. > Conrad certainly did not have sufficient information on my argument > to > gratuitiously assert that I am “unaware of the existential function > of the > verb EINAI in Greek” and that I “assume that all instances of the > verb are > tive.” Nor was he in a position to assume that I consider the > conventional reading of Heb. 1.3 to be invalid. In fact, I say in > my book, > “Both translations [the conventional and the one found in the NWT, > as well as > in notes to the NRSV and TEV] are possible, so none of the > translations we are > comnparing can be rejected inaccurate. We cannot settle the debate > with > certainty” (99) and “Let me repeat that both ways of translating > Hebrews 1.8 > are legitimate readings of the original Greek of the verse. There > is no basis > for proponents of either translation to claim that the other > translation is > certainly wrong. All that can be discussed is which translation is > more > probable” (101). I hope that is clear. I argue in the book that > “God is your > throne” is more probable based on the following points:> > Linguistic:> 1. preponderance of use of hO QEOS as a nominative, rather than as a > vocative;> 2. lack of parallel to using EIS TON AIWNA as an absolute predicate > phrase; > preponderance of its use as modifier of other elements within the > predicate;> 3. the existence of an alternative way to convey the vocative if it > is > intended.> > Literary:> 1. literary context in Hebrews fails to supply another reference to > Jesus as > “God”; functionality of the verse in its context without taking hO > QEOS as a > vocative;> 2. literary context of original passage in Psalm 45 shows that God > is not > being addressed; rather a king is being praised by cataloguing the > attributes > of his life in the palace.> > Let me add that this argument in presented in just two pages written > at a > popular level.> > Dr. Conrad has gone to the trouble of carefully investigating my > statement > that “There is no other example in the Bible where the expression > ‘forever’ > stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb ‘to be’ . . . > ‘Forever’ > always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb, or > a > predicate noun or pronoun” (99, part of Linguistic argument 2 > above). He cites > what he considers contrary examples, and this leads to his > conclusion that my > statement is in error. It is in error only in the way I sometimes > let the > popular level at which I am writing in the book oversimplify, > namely, (a) I > use “Bible” and “New Testament” interchangeably in the book, and (b) > once I > have given an English rendering for a Greek phrase, I use the > English to stand > for the referenced Greek wording. I can see now that his needs to be > handled > more carefully in future editions of the book. My statement, within > the > context of how the book is written (with the two practices of > simplification I > just mentioned) is correct. None of Dr. Conrad’s examples refute > it, and I am > surprised no one else on this list has noted that fact. In none of > Dr. > Conrad’s examples does the phrase EIS TON AIWNA stand alone with an > explicit > or implicit EINAI in the predicate. Instead, his exampled involve > either the > dative of possessor which the phrase complements (in the doxological > formulae) > or the adverbial phrase MEQ’ hUMWN, which again the phrase > complements. Now > we all know how easy it is to quibble about what is or is not a true > parallel.> But all I wish to assert here is that Dr. Conrad’s argument falls > short of > demonstrating a failing in mine.> > On the other hand, Dr. Conrad’s instincts were right, even if he did > not > succeed in supporting them sufficiently. That is the case because > if we take > the Septuagint into account, then my statement would need to be > qualified. > Because there, in that part of the Bible that I did not take into > consideration in my analysis, we do find the phrase EIS TON AIWNA > used > absolutely with either explicit or implicit EINAI, namely, in Psalm > 80.16 > (81.15), 103.31 (104.31), 134.13 (135.13), and repeatedly in the > expression > “his mercy (is) forever” in Psalms 99, 105, 106, 117, 135, and 137). > So this > information would require me to speak here, as I do in connection > with hO > QEOS, of preponderance of usage rather than claiming that there are > no other > examples. EIS TON AIWNA usually and regularly modifies some other > element of > a predicate, but it can stand alone, and so this part of my argument > looses > much of its force. A survey of the Psalms does show, however, that > the > preferred way to make an existential statement about the subject > with EIS TON > AIWNA is with MENW (e.g., Psalms 9.8, 32.11, 88.37, 101.13, 102.9, > 110.3, > 110.10, 111.3, 111.9, 116.2).> > With that, let me just repeat that there is no objective, linguistic > way to > determine which of the two possible translations of Heb. 1.8 is the > correct > one, and one’s choice must always be qualified by this fact. I have > made an > argument for preferring one translation as more probable, and even > with a > retraction of one part of it as too sweeping an assertion, that > argument is > still stronger than any with which I am familiar on behalf of the > other > possible translation. I would be interested to hear any argument > that could > be made on linguistic and literary grounds for preferring the > “conventional > translation” to the other.> > best wishes,> Jason BeDuhn> > Jason BeDuhn> Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair> Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion> Northern Arizona University> >I would presume that what we are dealing with here is not some form of”Jabberwocky” but has a meaning. I would therefore ask, “What is themeaning of ‘God is your throne’?” Unless this can be answeredconvincingly, I cannot see how this can be accepted as a validtranslation. The JPS Tanak in its version of the Psalm does translate itas “divine throne”, but I hardly think that was its intention as anenthronement psalm.georgegfsomsel

 

[] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home[] Hebrews 1.8

[] Hebrews 1.8 Ron Fay roncfay at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 9 19:43:05 EDT 2004

 

[] Hebrews 1.8 [] Hebrews 1.8–THREAD CLOSED >Linguistic:>1. preponderance of use of hO QEOS as a nominative, rather than as a >vocative;Statistics is generally irrelevent to a single use. That is introductory statistics. All statistics can show is trends, and trends do not in fact move a single point of data.>2. lack of parallel to using EIS TON AIWNA as an absolute predicate phrase;>preponderance of its use as modifier of other elements within the >predicate;You rightly hedge this yourself.>3. the existence of an alternative way to convey the vocative if it is>intended.Irrelevent. hO KURIOS is often used as a vocative even when KURIE has been used in the same book (see Matthew’s Gospel).>Literary:>1. literary context in Hebrews fails to supply another reference to Jesus >as>“God”; functionality of the verse in its context without taking hO QEOS as >a>vocative;Debatable at best.>2. literary context of original passage in Psalm 45 shows that God is not>being addressed; rather a king is being praised by cataloguing the >attributes>of his life in the palace.The Psalm is using typology such that the “king” (probable Messianic allusion) is seen as a shadow or extension of God, if you will forgive the clumsy wording on my part.- Ron________________________________________________Ron FayPh. D. student and New Testament FellowTrinity Evangelical Divinity SchoolDeerfield, IL.roncfay at hotmail.com_________________________________________________________________FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

 

[] Hebrews 1.8[] Hebrews 1.8–THREAD CLOSED

[] Hebrews 1.8–THREAD CLOSED Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 9 23:19:17 EDT 2004

 

[] Hebrews 1.8 [] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home I had previously suggested with regard to this thread “Hebrews 1:8” and therelated thread entitled “”Forever” and “to be” (was “Re: Hebrews 1:8”)”that it seemed pretty evident that the issue had been aired on all sideswith sufficient thoroughness that there is no point going on to re-statearguments that have already been offered in the earlier threads. I thoughtit was only fair to allow Professor BeDuhn’s message to come to the list ashis personal response to arguments posed by myself and others concerninghis exposition in his book _Truth in Translation_. Please let’s notcontinue this any further.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Hebrews 1.8[] Roush, A Greek Boy at Home

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.