Hebrews 3:11

Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Thu Dec 6 21:04:07 EST 2001


On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 01:06  AM, DEXROLL at aol.com wrote:

> (This is a second posting on this passage -- I got only one short 
> comment
> last friday)
>
> 3.11        hWS WMOSA EN TH  ORGH   MOU:
>         EI  EISELEUSONTAI   EIS THN   KATAVPAUSIVN MOU.
>     In doing some work on Hebrews I  came across this use of the 
> conditional
> as a sort of negative oath.   Now, I can understand the basic meaning 
> here as
> " if they shall enter my rest (or will they enter my rest ?) . No -- 
> they
> will not  ! ( understood apodosis)."  This phrase of course is repeated
> several times ( 4:3and 5).
>
>     In 3:18 we have TISIN  DE  WMOSEN   MH   EISELEUSESQAI   EIS  THN
> KATAPAUSIN   AUTOU  EI  MH   TOIS  APEIQHSASIN…  Now this phrase seems 
> to be
> from Numbers 14:23, although it is not the same as the Septuagint.
>
>     The first phrase is an exact quote from the Septuagint in Psalm 
> 95:11,
> which duplicates the Hebrew.  All of this brings a number of questions:
>
> 1. Is the conditional as negative oath  common in Greek or a Hebraism?
>
> Robertson (p.1024) says that it is "...an imitation of the Hebrew idiom,
> though not un-Greek in itself."
>
> 2. The phrase in 3:18 makes a simple negative statement, so what is the
> difference between the two?
>
> You have a simple conditional with the future indicative in one and  a 
> simple
> negation with the future infinitive in the second.

Hi David:

Please allow me to make just a few more comments on the above texts. 
When last I responded to you, it was past 2:30 in the A.M., and my 
comments were not as lucid as I would have liked. After I posted, I 
thought of a few more things to say, but I had to get up for work at 7 
A.M., so I had to fight the temptation.

First, in Heb 3.18, I don't think I made a clear enough distinction 
between syntax and semantics in the case of EI MH. *Syntactically*, EI 
marks a first class conditional clause subordinate to WMOSEN. 
*Semantically*, EI MH facilitates the singling out of TOIS APEIQHSASIN 
for focus, in order to emphasize that it was *those who were 
disobedient* to whom the oath was made that they would not enter God's 
rest.

Second, while in Heb 3.11 I think it is technically all right (primarily 
for explanatory reasons) to describe EI as marking the protasis of a 
first class conditional clause with an elliptical apodosis (see the full 
conditional sentence in Psa 7.4-5, LXX), thus implying a 
self-maledictory oath (which the full sentence would express), I think 
we have here a fixed idiom that takes on its own semantic character. The 
LEH lexicon of the LXX lists EI as meaning "*not*  (after an oath in a 
sense practically equivalent to a negative) Ps 94(95):11." After 
comparing Heb 3.11 with Heb 3.18 more carefully, I think that, 
semantically speaking, LEH is correct in taking EI "in a sense 
practically equivalent to a negative." Note what happens when the author 
of Hebrews converts the direct quote of Heb 3.11 into indirect speech in 
Heb 3.18: EI EISELEUSONTAI becomes MH EISELEUSESQAI. Thus, EI is 
converted to MH, lending support to the contention of LEH that EI in 
these instances has the sense, semantically speaking, of a negative.
=============

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list