Hebrews 10:14 Tom Belt TGBelt at compuserve.com
Mon Oct 22 22:35:14 EDT 2001
“Retained accusative”? (was: RE: instances of (accusative)objects in passive constructions) A better translation of Rom 4:1? Hi all-I’m on the road with none of my reference materials with me. I’m looking atHebrews 10:14 (RSV): “For by a single offering he has perfected for alltime those who are sanctified.” The NIV (with NAB and NLT) makes clear thepresent participal TOUS hAGIAZOMENOUS as “those being made holy” whereasthe RSV (with others) renders it as a perfect (“those who are sanctified”).Without materials to check on, I can’t check into:a) if there’s a variant reading of the participal in a tense other than thepresent, orb) if not, whether the present tense of the participal (being a participal)is insignificant, i.e., coordinate with the preceding perfect TETELEIWKEN(“made perfect”), and ought to be understood as completed action.Any comments? Tom Belttgbelt at compuserve.com
“Retained accusative”? (was: RE: instances of (accusative)objects in passive constructions)A better translation of Rom 4:1?
Hebrews 10:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 23 07:23:20 EDT 2001
A better translation of Rom 4:1? Hebrews 10:14 At 10:35 PM -0400 10/22/01, Tom Belt wrote:>Hi all-> >I’m on the road with none of my reference materials with me. I’m looking at>Hebrews 10:14 (RSV): “For by a single offering he has perfected for all>time those who are sanctified.” The NIV (with NAB and NLT) makes clear the>present participal TOUS hAGIAZOMENOUS as “those being made holy” whereas>the RSV (with others) renders it as a perfect (“those who are sanctified”).> >Without materials to check on, I can’t check into:> >a) if there’s a variant reading of the participal in a tense other than the>present, or>b) if not, whether the present tense of the participal (being a participal)>is insignificant, i.e., coordinate with the preceding perfect TETELEIWKEN>(“made perfect”), and ought to be understood as completed action.> >Any comments?The participle hAGIAZOMENOUS is indeed present; the only variant I’m awareof is ANASWZOMENOUS in p46, but it too is present tense. I would understandthe tenses of the indicative TETELEIWKEN and of the participlehAGIAZOMENOUS thus: the perfect tense underscores the the completeness ofthe High Priest’s single and efficacious offering, while the present tenseof the participle indicates that the process of sanctification is stillgoing on within the lives of believers–or else that it is a process thatis repeated undergone by believers throughout time.I’m not sure why the RSV translators chose to convey TOUS hAGIAZOMENOUS as”those who ARE sanctified”; but the English construction is ambiguous inthat it uses the same participle with the form of the verb “to be” (1) as apredicate adjective and (2) as part of a compound verb with “be” as anauxiliary. Whether this is confusing depends upon the verb: “They areheard” is pretty clearly a present passive 3d pl. of “hear”; but in “Theyare sanctified” the participle “sanctified” could be understood EITHER aspart of a passive verb OR as adjectival indicating a state. The otherversions you cite have avoided that problem by conveying hAGIAZOMENOUS as aprogressive passive, leaving no possibility of misunderstanding.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
A better translation of Rom 4:1?Hebrews 10:14
Hebrews 10:14 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Tue Oct 23 07:52:51 EDT 2001
Hebrews 10:14 Rom 11:25 On Mon 22 Oct 2001 (22:35:14), tgbelt at compuserve.com wrote:> Without materials to check on, I can’t check into:> > a) if there’s a variant reading of the participal in a tense other than> the present, or> b) if not, whether the present tense of the participal (being a participal)> is insignificant, i.e., coordinate with the preceding perfect TETELEIWKEN> (“made perfect”), and ought to be understood as completed action. Dear Tom, The text is MIAi GAR PROSFORAi TETELEIWKEN EIS TO DIHNEKES TOUS hAGIAZOMENOUS For by one offering he has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified. a) There is a variant reading in P46 only, ANASWZOMENOUS. This could be a “sound-alike” error from verbal dictation. It is also the Present Passive Participle, “those who are being saved”. Is there a big difference between “those who are being hallowed hAGIAZOMENOUS” and “those who are being saved ANASWZOMENOUS”? b) Salvation is an ongoing process, comprising Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. We were justified by the “One Offering”; we are now being sanctified by an ongoing process. The writer’s point is that the Old Testament sacrifices had to be continually repeated day by day to maintain the worshipper’s state of grace; but the sacrifice of Jesus is once and for all, a “one-shot” remedy for sin (verses 10-14). This is expressed in the use of the Perfect Active Indicative TETELEIWKEN for the once-only act of justification (“perfection”); but the choice of the Present Passive Participle expresses the ongoing nature of the sanctification in individual believers. The process will be complete when “his enemies are made his footstool”, verse 13. The English Versions mostly follow the majority text, along with the 27th edition of the Nestle/Aland GNT (UBS). 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 10:14Rom 11:25
[] Hebrews 10.14 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 23 18:01:56 EDT 2004
[] Hebrews 10.14 [] Hebrews 10.14 Morgan:It looks like those translators are taking it assubstantival. I would not want to emphasize its”continuous sense” in such usages. The aspectualnature of this participle should not be prominent dueto its substantival use here.Eddie— Morgan Powell <mrpowell at tpg.com.au> wrote:> I was wondering about the translation of TOUS> hAGIAZOMENOUS in hebrews 10:14.> I notice the nasb gives it has “those who are> sanctified.”> the niv gives “those being made holy” which would> capture the continuous sense of the present ptcple.> I note also that just 4 verses earlier in hebrews> 10:10 we find hHGIASMENOI – a perfect passive> participle – been sanctified.> Is there any justification for the present> participle being translated with a perfect sense?> > thankyou> > Morgan Powell> mrpowell at tpg.com.au> sydney, Australia> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> __________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete – You start. We finish.http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[] Hebrews 10.14[] Hebrews 10.14
[] Hebrews 10.14 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Fri Sep 24 22:05:09 EDT 2004
[] Hebrews 10.14 [] Need some encouragement On Sep 23, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Morgan Powell wrote:> I was wondering about the translation of TOUS hAGIAZOMENOUS in hebrews > 10:14.> I notice the nasb gives it has “those who are sanctified.”> the niv gives “those being made holy” which would capture the > continuous sense of the present ptcple.> I note also that just 4 verses earlier in hebrews 10:10 we find > hHGIASMENOI – a perfect passive participle – been sanctified.> Is there any justification for the present participle being translated > with a perfect sense?Note, though, that in 10.14 we have a substantival participle, but in 10.10 a periphrastic construction with ESMEN, which functions as a perfect passive indicative.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
[] Hebrews 10.14[] Need some encouragement