On Hebrews 4: 15

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 25 07:51:39 EDT 2002


At 4:10 PM +0000 6/23/02, Mark Wilson wrote:
>Waldo:
>
>You wrote:
>
>---------
>>OU GAR ECOMEN ARCIEREA MH DUNAMENON SUNPAQHSAI TAIS
>>ASQENEIAIS hHMWN, PEPEIRASMENON DE KATA PANTA KAQ'
>>hOIMOIOTHTA CWRIS hARMARTIAS
>>
>>With the use of the final preposition phrase here,
>>CWRIS hARMARTIAS, are we to understand that this use
>>of sin IN THE SINGULAR means something similar to
>>John's use of sin in his epistle ( EAN EIPWMEN hOTI
>>hARMARIAN OUK ECOMEN ). Here is my question: Can we
>>understand this preposition phrase as either
>>
>>1] the principle of sin, sin principle
>>2] the act of sin, sinning
>>
>--------
>
>There are many verses of scripture that DRAW OUT our
>theological presuppositions, and this is one of those verses.
>
>In my humble opinion, you will not DERIVE any theological
>insight from this verse. All one is able to do is to demonstrate
>how this verse supports their already-accepted theological position.
>This is true of me as well as anyone else.

I've been thinking about Mark's response to Waldo Slusher's query for a
couple days now, disturbed but not quite sure whether or how to say
anything relevant about it. I am inclined to deplore the broaching of
hermeneutical and theological issues which we try pretty scrupulously to
steer clear of in list-discussion, inasmuch as list-members range across a
broad spectrum of diverse convictions on these issues and it's rather
difficult to say anything about them at all without goring somebody's ox.
Neverthless I'd like to respond briefly to the initial remark of Mark's
response above, and then, without further discussing the central issue of
the discussion, call attention to one rather short but (I think) useful
exchange over Heb 4:15, PEPEIRASMENON ... CWRIS hAMARTIAS from four years
ago in this forum.

a. While it is hardly unlikely that one comes to a verse such as this
without holding some assumptions that will shape his or her inclinations
toward interpretation, nevertheless I'd like to think that any serious
reader of the Biblical text comes to it with some hope and expectancy, even
readiness, to learn something new from it, even, perhaps, to have one's
preconceptions radically transformed by a new insight.

Here I'd like to cite something from a similar past BG discussion (Sept 15,
1999):

"Granted, we don't all share the same assumptions, and this is particularly
the case regarding theological assumptions. Two persons who agree that
CRISTOU IHSOU is a genitive in PISTIS CRISTOU IHSOU may disagree on whether
it's a SUBJECTIVE or an OBJECTIVE genitive, and their theological
assumptions may be a factor in determining whether one is more inclined to
see it as a SUBJECTIVE and the other as an OBJECTIVE genitive.

"Nevertheless, however much interpretation may depend upon what the reader
brings with him/her to the Greek text being interpreted, the process of
interpretation can hardly be arbitrary. While we may all be inclined to
favor one legitimate alternative way of understanding a text over another
legitimate alternative on the basis of our personal belief, I think (I
certainly HOPE) that we all want, so far as we are able, to avoid
EIS-egesis: we want to read a meaning that we honestly think is there in
the text for us to see, not to force upon the text a meaning that we think
would be convenient to find there. So, yes: our theological assumptions do
have a bearing on how we look at the alternative meanings that grammatical
analysis discloses to us--and occasionally they may even incline us to
construe the syntax in a way that seems suspect to others, but I really
don't believe any of us honestly wants to be deluded about what the text
really means."

And then, in response to a comment, "... most of the time, posters already
know what they believe and merely wish to have it authenticated," I
responded thus:

"EVEN IF this very cynical (you might prefer to call it "realistic," but I
call it cynical) perception of what's going on in this forum has a certain
amount of validity, I think that even so there may occasionally come what I
would call, for want of a better term, "moments of grace," when one is
inclined to question the authority one normally respects without question,
when one opens his/her mind to an alternative way of looking at a text that
is different from, even opposed to the way one has hitherto thought most
appropriate. Perhaps it is indeed the case (I'd rather not believe it but
I'll grant it MAY be so--I certainly am aware that this is sometimes the
case) that people pose questions about texts primarily in order to have
their preferred understanding of a passage confirmed or reinforced, I
continue to be 'naively' hopeful that most list-members have a mind that is
partially open to the cogency of alternative viewpoints, and that this is
why they find B-Greek a helpful, perhaps even a very valuable experience.
But if it is true that most people ask questions only for the purpose of
having their pre-disposed perspective on a passage confirmed, I'd have to
say that I believe there are quite enough list-members who pose their
questions with a more honest intent to justify what we do on the list."

b. Accessible in the BG archives for May 1998 is a brief exchange on
5/11/98 initiated by Mark Goodacre with responses by others, especially by
Jeffrey Gibson with subject-header, "Heb. 4.15 - CWRIS hAMARTIAS." This
discussion may not change any particular B-Greeker's view of the matter,
but it will at least provide some food for thought.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list