Hebrews 13:4

[] Hebrews 13:4 Diana L Hayes dihayes at juno.com
Tue Nov 29 11:07:19 EST 2005

 

[] KAQOLIKOS = “complete” (versus “universal”)? [] Hebrews 13:4 Dear s, I was wondering if there is anyway that the first part of Hebrews 13:4could be translated as a command, meaning “Honor marriage among all..”. I do not think that it can, because TIMIOS is an adjective; that itreally should be translated as describing marriage, stating a fact alsobecause it is in the indicative form. Just want to make sure I am notmissing anything. Thank you for all your help, in advance.In Jesus Christ,Diana HayesShepherd, TX

 

[] KAQOLIKOS = “complete” (versus “universal”)?[] Hebrews 13:4

[] Hebrews 13:4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Tue Nov 29 11:20:10 EST 2005

 

[] Hebrews 13:4 [] Hebrews 13:4 On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Diana L Hayes wrote:> Dear s,> I was wondering if there is anyway that the first part of Hebrews > 13:4> could be translated as a command, meaning “Honor marriage among > all..”.> I do not think that it can, because TIMIOS is an adjective; that it> really should be translated as describing marriage, stating a fact > also> because it is in the indicative form. Just want to make sure I am not> missing anything. Thank you for all your help, in advance.I think it very likely IS an imperative given the context:Heb 13:1 hH FILADELFIA MENETW. 2 THS FILOXENIAS MH EPILANQANESQE, DIA TAUTHS GAR ELAQON TINES XENISANTES AGGELOUS. 3 MIMNHSKESQE TWN DESMIWN hWS SUNDEDEMENOI, TWN KAKOUXOUMENWN hWS KAI AUTOI ONTES EN SWMATI. 4 TIMIOS hO GAMOS EN PASIN KAI hH KOINTH AMIANTOS, PORNOUS GAR KAI MOICOUS KRINEI hO QEOS. … 13:7 MNHMONEUETE TWN hHGOUMENWN hUMWN, hOITINES ELALHSAN hUMIN TON LOGON TU QEOU …Since the context is one of moral parenesis with instructions being given in imperatives (MENETW, MH EPILANQANESQE, MIMNHSKESQE … MNHMONEUETE …), in several instances the imperatives being followed by rationales, I think we probably should understand an elliptical ESTW with verse 4, so that it will read:4 TIMIOS (ESTW) hO GAMOS EN PASIN KAI hH KOINTH (ESTW) AMIANTOS, PORNOUS GAR …Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Hebrews 13:4[] Hebrews 13:4

[] Hebrews 13:4 Yancy Smith Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
Tue Nov 29 11:33:41 EST 2005

 

[] Hebrews 13:4 [] Hebrews 13:4 Diana, Just I was about to send this, Carl’s answer came through, I am incomplete agreement with his response. The clause in which TIMIOS and AMIANTOS occurs is verbless and it forms the basis of the inferential clause (conclusion) introduced by GAR, “for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” Since it comes within the context of a paranetic paragraph which is marked by 3rd/2nd person imperatives, “MENETW” (13:1), MH EPIPLANESQE (v.2), MIMNHiSKESQE (v. 3), it is best to see the mode of the verbless clause in verse 4 as “dependent” on or “carrying over” the imperatives in its context. In this case the verb supplied would be the imperative form of “to be”–“let _____ be.” Another way of looking at it is to see if the translation with an indicative mode makes sense, “Marriage is held in esteem by all and the bed is undefiled, for this reason God will judge fornicators and adulterers” makes less sense and would seem odd in its context (i.e. it does not satisfy the criterion of relevance), and the Greek reader would know almost automatically that the mode is imperatival.YancyYancy SmithY.W.Smith at tcu.eduBrite Divinity SchoolTexas Christian University

 

[] Hebrews 13:4[] Hebrews 13:4

[] Hebrews 13:4 Elizabeth Kline kline-dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Nov 30 11:32:20 EST 2005

 

[] Hebrews 13:4 [] Hebrews 13:4 Carl W. Conrad Wrote:> > Heb 13:1 hH FILADELFIA MENETW. 2 THS FILOXENIAS MH EPILANQANESQE, DIA> TAUTHS GAR ELAQON TINES XENISANTES AGGELOUS. 3 MIMNHSKESQE TWN> DESMIWN hWS SUNDEDEMENOI, TWN KAKOUXOUMENWN hWS KAI AUTOI ONTES EN> SWMATI. 4 TIMIOS hO GAMOS EN PASIN KAI hH KOINTH AMIANTOS, PORNOUS> GAR KAI MOICOUS KRINEI hO QEOS. … 13:7 MNHMONEUETE TWN hHGOUMENWN> hUMWN, hOITINES ELALHSAN hUMIN TON LOGON TU QEOU …> > Since the context is one of moral parenesis with instructions being> given in imperatives (MENETW, MH EPILANQANESQE, MIMNHSKESQE …> MNHMONEUETE …), in several instances the imperatives being followed> by rationales, I think we probably should understand an elliptical> ESTW with verse 4, so that it will read:> > 4 TIMIOS (ESTW) hO GAMOS EN PASIN KAI hH KOINTH (ESTW) AMIANTOS,> PORNOUS GAR …Yancy Smith wrote:> Just I was about to send this, Carl’s answer came through, I> am incomplete agreement with his response. The clause in which TIMIOS> and AMIANTOS occurs is verbless and it forms the basis of the> inferential clause (conclusion) introduced by GAR, “for God will> judge fornicators and adulterers.” Since it comes within the context> of a paranetic paragraph which is marked by 3rd/2nd person> imperatives, “MENETW” (13:1), MH EPIPLANESQE (v.2), MIMNHiSKESQE (v.> 3), it is best to see the mode of the verbless clause in verse 4 as> “dependent” on or “carrying over” the imperatives in its context. In> this case the verb supplied would be the imperative form of “to> be”–“let _____ be.” Another way of looking at it is to see if the> translation with an indicative mode makes sense, “Marriage is held in> esteem by all and the bed is undefiled, for this reason God will> judge fornicators and adulterers” makes less sense and would seem odd> in its context (i.e. it does not satisfy the criterion of relevance),> and the Greek reader would know almost automatically that the mode is> imperatival.I am in total agreement with Drs. Conrad and Smith. Could someone explain why in the last thirty years there has been a wave of popular exegesis based on the reading of the second clause hH KOINTH AMIANTOS as an indicative? (I suspect that this would entail reading the first clause as indicative.) This position was being promoted in the ’70s by a seminary president, a prominent national (USA) leader in the Evangelical movement (ThD, Dallas Seminary). I suspect this “scholar” grew up reading the KJV.Does anyone want to defend reading hH KOINTH AMIANTOS as an indicative?Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Hebrews 13:4[] Hebrews 13:4

[] Hebrews 13:4 Diana L Hayes dihayes at juno.com
Wed Nov 30 16:44:05 EST 2005

 

[] hUPOSTASIS and OUSIA in Adversus Haereses [] Jn 3:16 lack of AUTOU Dear s, Thank you Mr. Conrad, Ms. Yancy, and Ms. Kline for your response toHebrews 13:4. They were very well said. I thought I just might bemissing something, because it seems like there is always something elseto consider in the Greek, especially when in the process of learning it. Context is a big deal though, really not to be overlooked. I am lookingforward to responses on Ms. Kline’s writing though, how is this lastclause to be understood? Thank you again for your help, and for otherthings you have helped on also.In His mercy,Diana HayesShepherd, TX

 

[] hUPOSTASIS and OUSIA in Adversus Haereses[] Jn 3:16 lack of AUTOU

[] Hebrews 13:4 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Wed Nov 30 19:11:43 EST 2005

 

[] Hebrews 13:4 [] hUPOSTASIS and OUSIA in Adversus Haereses On Wed 30 Nov 2005 (08:32:20), kline-dekooning at earthlink.net wrote:> Could someone explain why in the last thirty years there has been a> wave of popular exegesis based on the reading of the second clause hH> KOINTH AMIANTOS as an indicative? (I suspect that this would entail> reading the first clause as indicative.) This position was being> promoted in the ’70s by a seminary president, a prominent national> (USA) leader in the Evangelical movement (ThD, Dallas Seminary). I> suspect this “scholar” grew up reading the KJV. Dear Elizabeth, There is no place in scholarship for trying to second-guess a commentator’s motives; but there is always a tendency for one’s doctrinal presuppositions to drive one’s exegesis, and turn it into subjective eisegesis. Your anonymous seminary president was probably encouraged by the early church commentators. The Syriac version gives the indicative “Marriage is honorable…”. So does Chrysostom in his comment “PWS TIMIOS hO GAMOS; hOTI EN SWFROSUNHi, FUSI, DIATHREI TON PISTON.” So apparently Theodoret and Oecumenius; but Theophylact disagrees. The Latin Fathers take it as declaratory, although Jerome in the Vulgate leaves it ambiguous /Honorabile connubium in omnibus et torus immaculatus/. Verse 5 in the Latin begins /sint mores sine avaritia, etc/ making it exhortatory; assuming an absent ESTW in the Greek text. So it would seem that this is not a 1970s novelty, but an ancient tradition preserved in the KJV and revived in the 1970s. As you, I agree with Yancy Smith and Carl Conrad. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF ZFC Hf <ben.crick at NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)*Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM*Castle Iyonix X100, RO5.06, 600MHz XScale processor, 512MB DDR RAM, 114GB HD, CD-RW, etc. *Ethernet networking.

 

[] Hebrews 13:4[] hUPOSTASIS and OUSIA in Adversus Haereses

[] Hebrews 13:4 Steve Westfall steve.westfall at comcast.net
Thu Dec 1 15:07:21 EST 2005

 

[] “Atomos” in 1 Corinthians 15:52 [] Hebrews 13:4 Elizabeth,I thought this was a forum for discussing Greek. You have:(1) Complained about an interpretation promoted by an anonymous butapparently prominent person.(2) Cast doubt on that person’s credentials by your use of quotations aroundthe word “scholar”.(3) Told us where he obtained his degree (perhaps implying that it has somerelevance to his scholarly deficiencies).If you are not going to provide the person’s name so that others can judgethese matters for themselves, I suggest that we stick to discussing theoriginal issue. I thought Dr. Conrad’s and Yancy Smith’s comments were mosthelpful and to the point.Steve Westfall> —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org > [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of > Elizabeth Kline> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:32 AM> To: greek> Subject: Re: [] Hebrews 13:4> . . .Elizabeth Kline wrote:> > I am in total agreement with Drs. Conrad and Smith. Could > someone explain why in the last thirty years there has been a > wave of popular exegesis based on the reading of the second > clause hH KOINTH AMIANTOS as an indicative? (I suspect that > this would entail reading the first clause as indicative.) > This position was being promoted in the ’70s by a seminary > president, a prominent national (USA) leader in the > Evangelical movement (ThD, Dallas Seminary). I suspect this > “scholar” > grew up reading the KJV.> > Does anyone want to defend reading hH KOINTH AMIANTOS as an > indicative?> > > Elizabeth Kline>

 

[] “Atomos” in 1 Corinthians 15:52[] Hebrews 13:4

[] Hebrews 13:4 Elizabeth Kline kline-dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Dec 1 16:02:55 EST 2005

 

[] Hebrews 13:4 [] EPAGGELIA/EPAGGELMA 2 Peter 3:9, 13 On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Steve Westfall wrote:> If you are not going to provide the person’s name …The name of this elderly man is of no importance. It is withheld to protect him and the schools where he taught. He was a well known leader evangelical leader decades ago. His credentials were good (ThD Dallas), he claimed to have thirty years of greek study to his credit and he used the indicative reading of hH KOINTH AMIANTOS Hebrews 13:4 as a proof text in a manner which would make any serious NT exegete put the word “scholar” in quotes.My question was are there any qualified exegetes that would like to defend the indicative reading of hH KOINTH AMIANTOS Hebrews 13:4?This question is on topic.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Hebrews 13:4[] EPAGGELIA/EPAGGELMA 2 Peter 3:9, 13

[] Hebrews 13:4 KOITH not KOINTH On Dec 1, 2005,at 4:02 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote: On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:07 PM,Steve Westfall wrote: My question was are there any qualifiedexegetes that would like to defend the indicative reading ofhH KOINTH AMIANTOS Hebrews 13:4? Just to correct onemis-spelling that has persisted throughout this thread: theword is KOITH, not the very un-Greek-sounding KOINTH. Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Thu Dec 1 16:20:58 EST 2005

 

[] EPAGGELIA/EPAGGELMA 2 Peter 3:9, 13 [] Hebrews 13:4 KOITH not KOINTH On Dec 1, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Steve Westfall wrote:> > My question was are there any qualified exegetes that would like to> defend the indicative reading of hH KOINTH AMIANTOS Hebrews 13:4?Just to correct one mis-spelling that has persisted throughout this thread: the word is KOITH, not the very un-Greek-sounding KOINTH.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] EPAGGELIA/EPAGGELMA 2 Peter 3:9, 13[] Hebrews 13:4 KOITH not KOINTH