Hebrews 6

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Oct 28 06:46:35 EST 1998


At 4:27 PM -0800 10/27/98, Kelley Mata wrote:
>I have always wondered why most translations render parapesontas in Hebrews
>6:6 as an adverbial participle while all the preceding participles in that
>passage (which are in the same coordinating construction) are translated as
>adjectival and as conditional.  This has always seemed strange to me.  Why
>the change?
>Anyone have any suggestions?

Interesting question, and, I think, a legitimate one. The Greek text of Heb 
6:4-6: (4) ADUNATON GAR TOUS hAPAX FWTISQENTAS GEUSAMENOUS TE THS DWREAS 
THS EPOURANIOU KAI METOCOUS GENHQENTAS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU (5) KAI KALON 
GEUSAMENOUS QEOU hRHMA DUNAMEIS TE MELLONTOS AIWNOS (6) KAI PARAPESONTAS 
PALIN ANAKAINIZEIN EIS METANOIAN, ...

Certainly the chief subject of ADUNATON ... PALIN ANAKAINIZEIN EIS 
METANOIAN must be the substantival participle TOUS hAPAX FWTISQENTAS. The 
question is whether the succeeding participles, GEUSAMENOUS, GENHQENTAS, 
and GEUSAMENOUS are linked by conjunctions so that they are really part of 
TOUS hAPAX FWTISQENTAS. I think it can be reasonably argued that they are, 
but IF they are, then I think it is reasonable to understand PARAPESONTAS 
also as attributive rather than adverbial, thus yielding the sense: "those 
who have once been enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and have 
become partakers of holy spirit and have tasted the word of God and 
miracles of the age-to-come and have fallen away ...; that is to say, it is 
reasonable to understand the TOUS following GAR as including all of these 
aorist participles within the large substantive, inasmuch as the 
conjunctions, indeed the tightly-linking conjunctions TE ... KAI, seem 
intended to constitute all of them into a single characterization of these 
particular 'backsliders.' It is possible, I suppose, to understand the KAI 
preceding PARAPESONTAS as adverbial rather than as a conjunction, "even 
after they have fallen away" and in that way make this participle different 
from the rest, therefore circumstantial and adverbial rather than 
attributive--BUT at least as convincing a case (if not a more convincing 
one) can be made for the KAI before PARAPESONTAS as a conjunction parallel 
to the TE following GEUSAMENOUS and the KAI preceding METOCOUS GENHQENTAS 
and the KAI preceding KALON GEUSAMENOUS QEOU hRHMA.

My guess is that the reason translators have taken that final participle 
PARAPESONTAS as adverbial-circumstantial is that they want to construe it 
with the infinitive PALIN AKANAINIZEIN rather than with the series of 
substantival participles introduced by TOUS, and I would guess also that 
they are emboldened to this view by the fact that the other participles all 
describe the positive consequences of successful conversion while 
PARAPESONTAS refers to 'backsliding.'

Nevertheless, upon close examination of this whole sequence, it seems to me 
that any explanation of the KAI preceding PARAPESONTAS as merely adverbial 
rather than conjunctive is highly suspect. Consequently I think I would 
join Kelley in what I take to be a protest against the understanding of 
this sequence by "most translations."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list