Hebrews 2:10

Hebrews 2:10 DIA Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Thu Jul 29 07:01:46 EDT 1999

 

could someone translate this please? EIMI — copulative or stative This threw me for a loop this morning:Hebrews 2:10 EPREPEN GAR AUWi, DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA, POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS DOXAN AGAGONTA TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.The phrase DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA refers to God. The first DIA, with the accusative, means “for the sake of”; the second, with the genitive, means – at least I thought – “through the agency of”. I remember first encountering this use of DIA when reading John the first time, where I thought the whole point of using DIA in this way was to distinguish the primary agent of creation (God) from the secondary agent of creation (Jesus). Some verses where I thought this distinction was carefully made using DIA occur in John 1:3, John 1:10, Colossians 1:16.Hebrews 2:10 threw me for a loop because it uses DIA+genitive for God, who would be the primary agent, using the distinction made above. Other verses that seem to use this in a similar way occur in 1 Cor 1:9, 1 Cor 12:8, Hebrews 2:10, Hebrews 13:11, 1 Pet 2:14, etc (references thanks to Zerwick, section 113).Also, DIA+genitive is used to refer to the person who betrays Jesus (Matt 26:24, Mark 14:21, Luke 22:22). I had always thought this implied that Judas was an intermediary agent of Satan, the same way that Jesus was an intermediate in God’s creation.Incidentally, I tried looking at verses that refer to a man having a child by a woman, but the preposition used in these verses seems to be EX rather than DIA. Nice try…At any rate, back to my question: to what extent does DIA+genitive distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent? How is it to be understood in the verses discussed above, e.g. in Hebrews 2:10? Is it legitimate to translate DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA as “for whom and by whom”?Thanks!Jonathan

 

could someone translate this please?EIMI — copulative or stative

Hebrews 2:10 DIA Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Thu Jul 29 07:01:46 EDT 1999

 

could someone translate this please? EIMI — copulative or stative This threw me for a loop this morning:Hebrews 2:10 EPREPEN GAR AUWi, DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA, POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS DOXAN AGAGONTA TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.The phrase DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA refers to God. The first DIA, with the accusative, means “for the sake of”; the second, with the genitive, means – at least I thought – “through the agency of”. I remember first encountering this use of DIA when reading John the first time, where I thought the whole point of using DIA in this way was to distinguish the primary agent of creation (God) from the secondary agent of creation (Jesus). Some verses where I thought this distinction was carefully made using DIA occur in John 1:3, John 1:10, Colossians 1:16.Hebrews 2:10 threw me for a loop because it uses DIA+genitive for God, who would be the primary agent, using the distinction made above. Other verses that seem to use this in a similar way occur in 1 Cor 1:9, 1 Cor 12:8, Hebrews 2:10, Hebrews 13:11, 1 Pet 2:14, etc (references thanks to Zerwick, section 113).Also, DIA+genitive is used to refer to the person who betrays Jesus (Matt 26:24, Mark 14:21, Luke 22:22). I had always thought this implied that Judas was an intermediary agent of Satan, the same way that Jesus was an intermediate in God’s creation.Incidentally, I tried looking at verses that refer to a man having a child by a woman, but the preposition used in these verses seems to be EX rather than DIA. Nice try…At any rate, back to my question: to what extent does DIA+genitive distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent? How is it to be understood in the verses discussed above, e.g. in Hebrews 2:10? Is it legitimate to translate DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA as “for whom and by whom”?Thanks!Jonathan

 

could someone translate this please?EIMI — copulative or stative

Hebrews 2:10 DIA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 29 08:48:03 EDT 1999

 

EIMI — copulative or stative EIMI — copulative or stative At 7:01 AM -0400 7/29/99, Jonathan Robie wrote:>This threw me for a loop this morning:> >Hebrews 2:10 EPREPEN GAR AUTWi, DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA,>POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS DOXAN AGAGONTA TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA>PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.> >The phrase DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA refers to God. The first>DIA, with the accusative, means “for the sake of”; the second, with the>genitive, means – at least I thought – “through the agency of”. I remember>first encountering this use of DIA when reading John the first time, where>I thought the whole point of using DIA in this way was to distinguish the>primary agent of creation (God) from the secondary agent of creation>(Jesus). Some verses where I thought this distinction was carefully made>using DIA occur in John 1:3, John 1:10, Colossians 1:16.> >Hebrews 2:10 threw me for a loop because it uses DIA+genitive for God, who>would be the primary agent, using the distinction made above. Other verses>that seem to use this in a similar way occur in 1 Cor 1:9, 1 Cor 12:8,>Hebrews 2:10, Hebrews 13:11, 1 Pet 2:14, etc (references thanks to Zerwick,>section 113).I HOPE we can keep discussion of this question focused on grammaticalpossibilities and avoid theological ramifications. Having said that, I haveto say that I’m not sure why it’s necessary to assume that the relativepronoun in DI’ hON and DI’ hOU refer to different ‘persons.’ After all, theultimate object of the verb in 2:9 is IHSOUN. To me it seems more naturalto understand AUTWi and the two relative pronouns as referring to the same’person’–to IHSOUS. Moreover, I’d understand AUTWi not as a subject ofTELEIWSAI distinct from TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS. In fact, althoughTELEIWSAI is often enough a transitive active verb, it appears also to beused frequently enough in an intransitive sense, and I would understand itthat way here too: not that God makes Jesus perfect, but that Jesus fullyaccomplishes his mission. It was appropriate for him/Jesus; what wasappropriate? that He should complete his mission in a certain way; why wasit appropriate for him? because he is the mediator and agent of all things.This is the way I read the grammar of the sentence, quite apart from howone wants to understand the theology of it.As for the distinction between DI’ hON and DI’ hOU, I’m not so sure that itis so simple a matter as the distinction between “for the sake of” and”through the agency of.” I think that DIA with accusative is open to abroader variety of senses which might be most simply represented as”through the mediation of whom” “by way of whom”–i.e. the completion ofthe process requires involvement of the object of DIA. You might note, bythe way, that the genitive with DIA at the end of the verse, PAQHMATWN,can’t rightly be understood in terms of agency at all–it must meansomething like “in the course of successive ordeals of suffering.” Onevivid memory from my own first year of Greek is the endeavor to understandprepositions and their cases in terms of geometrical diagrams: DIA withGenitive was represented by a dotted arrow intersecting both sides of acircle and indicating the passage from one side of something through to theother side of it; DIA with Accusative was represented with a dotted arrowpassing through a point and indicating an essential point of intersectionfor the completion of an action. I’m not sure that really works in everyinstance, but I’ve always found it helpful when trying to sort out therange of senses which DIA may take in different contexts.So I’d understand the verse and convey its sense thus by way of paraphrase:”It was appropriate that he, inasmuch as all things are mediated by him andall things exist through his agency, that the author of their salvationshould accomplish his mission through experience of suffering, therebybringing many sons into glory.”>At any rate, back to my question: to what extent does DIA+genitive>distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent? How is it to be>understood in the verses discussed above, e.g. in Hebrews 2:10? Is it>legitimate to translate DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA as “for whom>and by whom”?I think I’ve explained my stance on the question: I do NOT think the intentis to distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent, and while I think”for whom” is a legitimate possible understanding of DI’ hON in Heb 2:10, Idon’t think it is NECESSARY to understand it that way: I’m more inclined tothink that in this instance the difference between DI’ hON and DI’ hOU isthe difference between MEANS and AGENT. That may seem like a trivial andredundant notion, but it’s a distinction which in the older case system issignaled by use of the Instrumental for Means and the Genitive for Agent.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

EIMI — copulative or stativeEIMI — copulative or stative

Hebrews 2:10 DIA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 29 08:48:03 EDT 1999

 

EIMI — copulative or stative EIMI — copulative or stative At 7:01 AM -0400 7/29/99, Jonathan Robie wrote:>This threw me for a loop this morning:> >Hebrews 2:10 EPREPEN GAR AUTWi, DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA,>POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS DOXAN AGAGONTA TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA>PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.> >The phrase DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA refers to God. The first>DIA, with the accusative, means “for the sake of”; the second, with the>genitive, means – at least I thought – “through the agency of”. I remember>first encountering this use of DIA when reading John the first time, where>I thought the whole point of using DIA in this way was to distinguish the>primary agent of creation (God) from the secondary agent of creation>(Jesus). Some verses where I thought this distinction was carefully made>using DIA occur in John 1:3, John 1:10, Colossians 1:16.> >Hebrews 2:10 threw me for a loop because it uses DIA+genitive for God, who>would be the primary agent, using the distinction made above. Other verses>that seem to use this in a similar way occur in 1 Cor 1:9, 1 Cor 12:8,>Hebrews 2:10, Hebrews 13:11, 1 Pet 2:14, etc (references thanks to Zerwick,>section 113).I HOPE we can keep discussion of this question focused on grammaticalpossibilities and avoid theological ramifications. Having said that, I haveto say that I’m not sure why it’s necessary to assume that the relativepronoun in DI’ hON and DI’ hOU refer to different ‘persons.’ After all, theultimate object of the verb in 2:9 is IHSOUN. To me it seems more naturalto understand AUTWi and the two relative pronouns as referring to the same’person’–to IHSOUS. Moreover, I’d understand AUTWi not as a subject ofTELEIWSAI distinct from TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS. In fact, althoughTELEIWSAI is often enough a transitive active verb, it appears also to beused frequently enough in an intransitive sense, and I would understand itthat way here too: not that God makes Jesus perfect, but that Jesus fullyaccomplishes his mission. It was appropriate for him/Jesus; what wasappropriate? that He should complete his mission in a certain way; why wasit appropriate for him? because he is the mediator and agent of all things.This is the way I read the grammar of the sentence, quite apart from howone wants to understand the theology of it.As for the distinction between DI’ hON and DI’ hOU, I’m not so sure that itis so simple a matter as the distinction between “for the sake of” and”through the agency of.” I think that DIA with accusative is open to abroader variety of senses which might be most simply represented as”through the mediation of whom” “by way of whom”–i.e. the completion ofthe process requires involvement of the object of DIA. You might note, bythe way, that the genitive with DIA at the end of the verse, PAQHMATWN,can’t rightly be understood in terms of agency at all–it must meansomething like “in the course of successive ordeals of suffering.” Onevivid memory from my own first year of Greek is the endeavor to understandprepositions and their cases in terms of geometrical diagrams: DIA withGenitive was represented by a dotted arrow intersecting both sides of acircle and indicating the passage from one side of something through to theother side of it; DIA with Accusative was represented with a dotted arrowpassing through a point and indicating an essential point of intersectionfor the completion of an action. I’m not sure that really works in everyinstance, but I’ve always found it helpful when trying to sort out therange of senses which DIA may take in different contexts.So I’d understand the verse and convey its sense thus by way of paraphrase:”It was appropriate that he, inasmuch as all things are mediated by him andall things exist through his agency, that the author of their salvationshould accomplish his mission through experience of suffering, therebybringing many sons into glory.”>At any rate, back to my question: to what extent does DIA+genitive>distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent? How is it to be>understood in the verses discussed above, e.g. in Hebrews 2:10? Is it>legitimate to translate DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA as “for whom>and by whom”?I think I’ve explained my stance on the question: I do NOT think the intentis to distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent, and while I think”for whom” is a legitimate possible understanding of DI’ hON in Heb 2:10, Idon’t think it is NECESSARY to understand it that way: I’m more inclined tothink that in this instance the difference between DI’ hON and DI’ hOU isthe difference between MEANS and AGENT. That may seem like a trivial andredundant notion, but it’s a distinction which in the older case system issignaled by use of the Instrumental for Means and the Genitive for Agent.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

EIMI — copulative or stativeEIMI — copulative or stative

Heb. 2:10 DIA james presept at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 29 13:05:03 EDT 1999

 

Kalos Computer Programme Jesus’ Word’s in Mk. 8:23,26 Dear Mr. Robie, Romans 11:36 is another passage that uses DIA + genitive.with God as the causal agent. Mediation is not the only meaning for DIA in this construction. Sole cause or agency is also a meaning depending on the context. -James Stewart————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990729/b023104b/attachment.html

 

Kalos Computer ProgrammeJesus’ Word’s in Mk. 8:23,26

Heb. 2:10 DIA james presept at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 29 13:05:03 EDT 1999

 

Kalos Computer Programme Jesus’ Word’s in Mk. 8:23,26 Dear Mr. Robie, Romans 11:36 is another passage that uses DIA + genitive.with God as the causal agent. Mediation is not the only meaning for DIA in this construction. Sole cause or agency is also a meaning depending on the context. -James Stewart————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990729/b023104b/attachment.html

 

Kalos Computer ProgrammeJesus’ Word’s in Mk. 8:23,26

Hebrews 2:10 DIA (repentance) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 30 07:02:11 EDT 1999

 

SKUBALON Kalos Computer Programme hAI DEUTERAI PWS FRONTIDES SOFWTERAI; so says Euripides. I’ve rethought amajor part of what I submitted yesterday in response to Jonathan’squestion. While I still think that the antecedent of both relative pronounsin Heb 2:10 (DI’ hON, DI’ hOU) must be the same, I have to concede that theAUTON which is their antecedent must refer to God; that referent is clearlythere in the phrase CARITI QEOU at the end of 2:9. Moreover, it isimpossible to understand (as I was trying to do speculatively yesterdaymorning) TELEIWSAI as intransitive in the sense of “come to fulfilment.” Itreally must be transitive-active and causative and must have the sense that-0W denominative verbs normally do have: “cause to be x”–in this instance”cause to be TELEIOS”. Although the verb TELEIOW does appear in the senseof “come to fulfilment,” all instances of that sense that I have foundinvolve a middle/reflexive form.At 8:48 AM -0400 7/29/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>At 7:01 AM -0400 7/29/99, Jonathan Robie wrote:>>This threw me for a loop this morning:>> >>Hebrews 2:10 EPREPEN GAR AUTWi, DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA,>>POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS DOXAN AGAGONTA TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA>>PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.>> >>The phrase DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA refers to God. The first>>DIA, with the accusative, means “for the sake of”; the second, with the>>genitive, means – at least I thought – “through the agency of”. I remember>>first encountering this use of DIA when reading John the first time, where>>I thought the whole point of using DIA in this way was to distinguish the>>primary agent of creation (God) from the secondary agent of creation>>(Jesus). Some verses where I thought this distinction was carefully made>>using DIA occur in John 1:3, John 1:10, Colossians 1:16.>> >>Hebrews 2:10 threw me for a loop because it uses DIA+genitive for God, who>>would be the primary agent, using the distinction made above. Other verses>>that seem to use this in a similar way occur in 1 Cor 1:9, 1 Cor 12:8,>>Hebrews 2:10, Hebrews 13:11, 1 Pet 2:14, etc (references thanks to Zerwick,>>section 113).> >I HOPE we can keep discussion of this question focused on grammatical>possibilities and avoid theological ramifications. Having said that, I have>to say that I’m not sure why it’s necessary to assume that the relative>pronoun in DI’ hON and DI’ hOU refer to different ‘persons.’ After all, the>ultimate object of the verb in 2:9 is IHSOUN. To me it seems more natural>to understand AUTWi and the two relative pronouns as referring to the same>‘person’–to IHSOUS. Moreover, I’d understand AUTWi not as a subject of>TELEIWSAI distinct from TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS. In fact, although>TELEIWSAI is often enough a transitive active verb, it appears also to be>used frequently enough in an intransitive sense, and I would understand it>that way here too: not that God makes Jesus perfect, but that Jesus fully>accomplishes his mission. It was appropriate for him/Jesus; what was>appropriate? that He should complete his mission in a certain way; why was>it appropriate for him? because he is the mediator and agent of all things.>This is the way I read the grammar of the sentence, quite apart from how>one wants to understand the theology of it.> >As for the distinction between DI’ hON and DI’ hOU, I’m not so sure that it>is so simple a matter as the distinction between “for the sake of” and>“through the agency of.” I think that DIA with accusative is open to a>broader variety of senses which might be most simply represented as>“through the mediation of whom” “by way of whom”–i.e. the completion of>the process requires involvement of the object of DIA. You might note, by>the way, that the genitive with DIA at the end of the verse, PAQHMATWN,>can’t rightly be understood in terms of agency at all–it must mean>something like “in the course of successive ordeals of suffering.” One>vivid memory from my own first year of Greek is the endeavor to understand>prepositions and their cases in terms of geometrical diagrams: DIA with>Genitive was represented by a dotted arrow intersecting both sides of a>circle and indicating the passage from one side of something through to the>other side of it; DIA with Accusative was represented with a dotted arrow>passing through a point and indicating an essential point of intersection>for the completion of an action. I’m not sure that really works in every>instance, but I’ve always found it helpful when trying to sort out the>range of senses which DIA may take in different contexts.> >So I’d understand the verse and convey its sense thus by way of paraphrase:>“It was appropriate that he, inasmuch as all things are mediated by him and>all things exist through his agency, that the author of their salvation>should accomplish his mission through experience of suffering, thereby>bringing many sons into glory.”> >>At any rate, back to my question: to what extent does DIA+genitive>>distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent? How is it to be>>understood in the verses discussed above, e.g. in Hebrews 2:10? Is it>>legitimate to translate DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA as “for whom>>and by whom”?> >I think I’ve explained my stance on the question: I do NOT think the intent>is to distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent, and while I think>“for whom” is a legitimate possible understanding of DI’ hON in Heb 2:10, I>don’t think it is NECESSARY to understand it that way: I’m more inclined to>think that in this instance the difference between DI’ hON and DI’ hOU is>the difference between MEANS and AGENT. That may seem like a trivial and>redundant notion, but it’s a distinction which in the older case system is>signaled by use of the Instrumental for Means and the Genitive for Agent.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

SKUBALONKalos Computer Programme

Hebrews 2:10 DIA (repentance) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 30 07:02:11 EDT 1999

 

SKUBALON Kalos Computer Programme hAI DEUTERAI PWS FRONTIDES SOFWTERAI; so says Euripides. I’ve rethought amajor part of what I submitted yesterday in response to Jonathan’squestion. While I still think that the antecedent of both relative pronounsin Heb 2:10 (DI’ hON, DI’ hOU) must be the same, I have to concede that theAUTON which is their antecedent must refer to God; that referent is clearlythere in the phrase CARITI QEOU at the end of 2:9. Moreover, it isimpossible to understand (as I was trying to do speculatively yesterdaymorning) TELEIWSAI as intransitive in the sense of “come to fulfilment.” Itreally must be transitive-active and causative and must have the sense that-0W denominative verbs normally do have: “cause to be x”–in this instance”cause to be TELEIOS”. Although the verb TELEIOW does appear in the senseof “come to fulfilment,” all instances of that sense that I have foundinvolve a middle/reflexive form.At 8:48 AM -0400 7/29/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>At 7:01 AM -0400 7/29/99, Jonathan Robie wrote:>>This threw me for a loop this morning:>> >>Hebrews 2:10 EPREPEN GAR AUTWi, DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA,>>POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS DOXAN AGAGONTA TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA>>PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.>> >>The phrase DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA refers to God. The first>>DIA, with the accusative, means “for the sake of”; the second, with the>>genitive, means – at least I thought – “through the agency of”. I remember>>first encountering this use of DIA when reading John the first time, where>>I thought the whole point of using DIA in this way was to distinguish the>>primary agent of creation (God) from the secondary agent of creation>>(Jesus). Some verses where I thought this distinction was carefully made>>using DIA occur in John 1:3, John 1:10, Colossians 1:16.>> >>Hebrews 2:10 threw me for a loop because it uses DIA+genitive for God, who>>would be the primary agent, using the distinction made above. Other verses>>that seem to use this in a similar way occur in 1 Cor 1:9, 1 Cor 12:8,>>Hebrews 2:10, Hebrews 13:11, 1 Pet 2:14, etc (references thanks to Zerwick,>>section 113).> >I HOPE we can keep discussion of this question focused on grammatical>possibilities and avoid theological ramifications. Having said that, I have>to say that I’m not sure why it’s necessary to assume that the relative>pronoun in DI’ hON and DI’ hOU refer to different ‘persons.’ After all, the>ultimate object of the verb in 2:9 is IHSOUN. To me it seems more natural>to understand AUTWi and the two relative pronouns as referring to the same>‘person’–to IHSOUS. Moreover, I’d understand AUTWi not as a subject of>TELEIWSAI distinct from TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS. In fact, although>TELEIWSAI is often enough a transitive active verb, it appears also to be>used frequently enough in an intransitive sense, and I would understand it>that way here too: not that God makes Jesus perfect, but that Jesus fully>accomplishes his mission. It was appropriate for him/Jesus; what was>appropriate? that He should complete his mission in a certain way; why was>it appropriate for him? because he is the mediator and agent of all things.>This is the way I read the grammar of the sentence, quite apart from how>one wants to understand the theology of it.> >As for the distinction between DI’ hON and DI’ hOU, I’m not so sure that it>is so simple a matter as the distinction between “for the sake of” and>“through the agency of.” I think that DIA with accusative is open to a>broader variety of senses which might be most simply represented as>“through the mediation of whom” “by way of whom”–i.e. the completion of>the process requires involvement of the object of DIA. You might note, by>the way, that the genitive with DIA at the end of the verse, PAQHMATWN,>can’t rightly be understood in terms of agency at all–it must mean>something like “in the course of successive ordeals of suffering.” One>vivid memory from my own first year of Greek is the endeavor to understand>prepositions and their cases in terms of geometrical diagrams: DIA with>Genitive was represented by a dotted arrow intersecting both sides of a>circle and indicating the passage from one side of something through to the>other side of it; DIA with Accusative was represented with a dotted arrow>passing through a point and indicating an essential point of intersection>for the completion of an action. I’m not sure that really works in every>instance, but I’ve always found it helpful when trying to sort out the>range of senses which DIA may take in different contexts.> >So I’d understand the verse and convey its sense thus by way of paraphrase:>“It was appropriate that he, inasmuch as all things are mediated by him and>all things exist through his agency, that the author of their salvation>should accomplish his mission through experience of suffering, thereby>bringing many sons into glory.”> >>At any rate, back to my question: to what extent does DIA+genitive>>distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent? How is it to be>>understood in the verses discussed above, e.g. in Hebrews 2:10? Is it>>legitimate to translate DI’ hON TA PANTA KAI DI’ hOU TA PANTA as “for whom>>and by whom”?> >I think I’ve explained my stance on the question: I do NOT think the intent>is to distinguish a secondary agent from a primary agent, and while I think>“for whom” is a legitimate possible understanding of DI’ hON in Heb 2:10, I>don’t think it is NECESSARY to understand it that way: I’m more inclined to>think that in this instance the difference between DI’ hON and DI’ hOU is>the difference between MEANS and AGENT. That may seem like a trivial and>redundant notion, but it’s a distinction which in the older case system is>signaled by use of the Instrumental for Means and the Genitive for Agent.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

SKUBALONKalos Computer Programme

Hebrews 2:10 DIA (repentance) Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Fri Jul 30 08:35:25 EDT 1999

 

AMFW Heb 2:18 PEPONQEN, PEIRASQEIS At 07:02 AM 7/30/99 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>hAI DEUTERAI PWS FRONTIDES SOFWTERAI; so says Euripides. I’ve rethought a>major part of what I submitted yesterday in response to Jonathan’s>question. While I still think that the antecedent of both relative pronouns>in Heb 2:10 (DI’ hON, DI’ hOU) must be the same, I have to concede that the>AUTON which is their antecedent must refer to God; that referent is clearly>there in the phrase CARITI QEOU at the end of 2:9.I’ve been reading and re-reading that passage, and I kept getting hung up on that CARITI QEOU, which seemed to be the nearest antecedent and which was making it hard for me to read it as you suggested yesterday. That said, I should also say that I feel I learned a lot from your message yesterday, and from reading the passage both ways.>Moreover, it is>impossible to understand (as I was trying to do speculatively yesterday>morning) TELEIWSAI as intransitive in the sense of “come to fulfilment.” It>really must be transitive-active and causative and must have the sense that>-0W denominative verbs normally do have: “cause to be x”–in this instance>“cause to be TELEIOS”. Although the verb TELEIOW does appear in the sense>of “come to fulfilment,” all instances of that sense that I have found>involve a middle/reflexive form.That’s very helpful – after yesterday, it’s nice to have some confirmation that it should be read the one way and not the other, and at this point, I need more than the antecedent to be completely sure!Jonathan

 

AMFWHeb 2:18 PEPONQEN, PEIRASQEIS

Hebrews 2:10 DIA (repentance) Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Fri Jul 30 08:35:25 EDT 1999

 

AMFW Heb 2:18 PEPONQEN, PEIRASQEIS At 07:02 AM 7/30/99 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>hAI DEUTERAI PWS FRONTIDES SOFWTERAI; so says Euripides. I’ve rethought a>major part of what I submitted yesterday in response to Jonathan’s>question. While I still think that the antecedent of both relative pronouns>in Heb 2:10 (DI’ hON, DI’ hOU) must be the same, I have to concede that the>AUTON which is their antecedent must refer to God; that referent is clearly>there in the phrase CARITI QEOU at the end of 2:9.I’ve been reading and re-reading that passage, and I kept getting hung up on that CARITI QEOU, which seemed to be the nearest antecedent and which was making it hard for me to read it as you suggested yesterday. That said, I should also say that I feel I learned a lot from your message yesterday, and from reading the passage both ways.>Moreover, it is>impossible to understand (as I was trying to do speculatively yesterday>morning) TELEIWSAI as intransitive in the sense of “come to fulfilment.” It>really must be transitive-active and causative and must have the sense that>-0W denominative verbs normally do have: “cause to be x”–in this instance>“cause to be TELEIOS”. Although the verb TELEIOW does appear in the sense>of “come to fulfilment,” all instances of that sense that I have found>involve a middle/reflexive form.That’s very helpful – after yesterday, it’s nice to have some confirmation that it should be read the one way and not the other, and at this point, I need more than the antecedent to be completely sure!Jonathan

 

AMFWHeb 2:18 PEPONQEN, PEIRASQEIS

Heb 2:10 alexali alexali at surf.net.au
Sat Jul 31 20:08:07 EDT 1999

 

skubalon (and etymology) Portugese Greek grammmer Jonathan has asked a couple of questions about Heb 2:10. I was wondering,Jonathan, if you have seen A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, byPhilip Edgcumbe Hughes. He has a long note on the verse, not in relationto either question you’ve asked, but on the significance of the particleAGAGONTA. It is well worth reading, but because it is lengthy I won’t typeit out unless it is of interest to you.Dr Alexander Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)

 

skubalon (and etymology)Portugese Greek grammmer

[] Heb 2:10 – AGAGONTA Kevin Smith kgsmith at webmail.co.za
Thu Jul 31 07:13:29 EDT 2003

 

[] Colossians 1:15 [] Heb 2:10 – AGAGONTA I have two questions regarding the use of AGAGONTA in Heb 2:10, which reads:EPREPEN GAR AUTWi, DI hON TA PANTA KAI DI hOU TA PANTA, POLLOUS hUIOUS EISDOXAN AGAGONTA TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.1) How would one describe or classify its grammatical function in thesentence? Is it a temporal participle?2) Why is it in the accusative case? It seems to modify AUTWi, so I wouldexpect it to be dative. What am I missing?ThanksKevin SmithPort ElizabethSouth Africa—Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 – Release Date: 7/10/03

 

[] Colossians 1:15[] Heb 2:10 – AGAGONTA

[] Heb 2:10 – AGAGONTA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 31 07:47:56 EDT 2003

 

[] Heb 2:10 – AGAGONTA [] John 17,3 present and future? At 1:13 PM +0200 7/31/03, Kevin Smith wrote:>I have two questions regarding the use of AGAGONTA in Heb 2:10, which reads:> >EPREPEN GAR AUTWi, DI hON TA PANTA KAI DI hOU TA PANTA, POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS>DOXAN AGAGONTA TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.> >1) How would one describe or classify its grammatical function in the>sentence? Is it a temporal participle?It is a circumstantial participle construing with the accusative object ofthe infinitive verb TELEIWSAI.>2) Why is it in the accusative case? It seems to modify AUTWi, so I would>expect it to be dative. What am I missing?AUTWi refers to God (the Father), but the AGAGONTA participial phrase isaccusative because it construes with TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN, theobject of TELEIWSAI, “For it was appropriate for him, for whose sake andthrough whose agency all things (are done), to perfect through sufferingsthe pioneer of their salvation when he had brought many sons to glory.” Orperhaps a little more suitable English: “It was consistent with the natureof the one for whom and through whom all things are done, after he hadbrought many sons into glory, to bring the “author” of their salvation toconsummation through sufferings,” The awkwardness here resides in thereader’s tendency to assume that AUTWi refers to the same person as TONARCHGON with which AGAGONTA accords.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Heb 2:10 – AGAGONTA[] John 17,3 present and future?

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]