[B-Greek] Two datives in Heb. 4:2

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 24 08:37:36 EDT 2003


At 2:44 PM -0700 9/23/03, Mark Lama wrote:
>Hebrews 4:2 (UBS2): KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI, ALL'
>OUK WFELHSEN hO LOGOS THS AKOHS EKEINOUS, MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS THi PISTEI
>TOIS AKOUSASIN.

Mark refers in his message (reproduced below) to my posting to the list of
Dec 2, 1998 with subject-header, "Re: Heb 4:2." In that message I wrote:

>I find this verb interesting: it seems to have been used initially of
>blending wine and water and then to have been established in a
>metaphorical sense referring to any kind of fusing together of elements,
>especially when used as here, in the passive, including the establishment
>of intimate personal relationships such as friendship and marriage.
>
>Upon looking more closely at this verse it looks to me as if a more
>interesting question is raised by the fact that SUGKEKERASMENOUS is
>followed by two datives. IF I've understood the usage of the verb
>correctly, and IF the reading of the participle as an accusative plural is
>right, then should we understand TOIS AKOUSASIN as governed by the prefix
>in SUGKEKERASMENOUS? That would seem more in keeping with the common usage
>of SUGKERANNUMI--but the larger context of this verse seems to require
>that we understand THi PISTEI as the dative construed with the prefix of
>SUGKERANNUMI and that we understand TOIS AKOUSASIN as a dative of
>reference: the gospel did not avail those who were not blended with faith
>in the ones who heard (it). To me it is the last dative plural phrase here
>that is most puzzling grammatically. I don't really think it can be a
>dative of agent with the passive participle--and--at least on the
>surface--it looks like TOUS SUGKERASMENOUS ought to refer to the same
>persons as those referred to by ATOIS AKOUSASIN. I think I'm missing
>something here. The only thing at all that is clear to me here is that the
>confusion in the text is probably itself a factor accounting for the
>variety of MS forms of of the perfect participle of SUGKERANNUMI.

I'm now inclining (perhaps not yet quite fully "inclined"?) towards a
different understanding of the phrase MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS THi PISTEI TOIS
AKOUSASIN, one hinted at by our recent discussions of John 3:36 and
distinctive ways in which PISTEUW, APEIQEW, AKOUW are used in GNT and LXX
to refer to "heeding" (APEIQEW to failure to heed) the gospel proclamation.
The other factor entering into my fresh perspective is my readiness now to
think that SUGKEKERASMENOUS is middle rather than passive: that is to say,
those whom the gospel message "the word which they heard" did no good,
"failed to join in commitment with those who had given heed to it." This
may turn out to be as unsatisfactory as other attempts to resolve the
problems of this passage, but at least it makes better sense of the
word-order of the two datives following upon the participle--and also, I
dare say, of the position of the participial phrase FOLLOWING the clause
OUK WFELHSEN hO LOGOS THS AKOHS EKEINOUS.

On this view, (a) the participial phrase is EXPLANATORY of that clause
("the word they heard didn't do them any good") and thus functions as would
a GAR clause clarifying the assertion about the failure of the gospel
proclamation in their case; (b) MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS, understood as a
middle-voice verb implying (in this instance, at least) deliberate decision
on the part of "them" ("they REFUSED to join in faith with those who had
heeded the proclamation") allows for a more intelligible accounting for the
two datives, though both are construed with the participle: THi PISTEI will
be a dative of "reference" or "respect" while TOIS AKOUSASIN will be an
old-fashioned "comitative" or "sociative" dative dependent upon the SUN-
prefix of the participle.

This account of the participial phrase and the two datives, including its
implicit notion that AKOUW/AKOH in our verse carriees the broader sense of
"heeding" or "commitment"--i.e. PISTIS, is confirmed, I think, by
consideration of the ones referred to as EKEINOI; they are characterized at
the end of the preceding chapter (Heb 3:18-19) thus: 3:18 TISIN DE WMOSEN
MH EISELEUSESQAI EIS THN KATAPAUSIN AUTOU EI MH TOIS APEIQHSASIN? 19 KAI
BLEPOMEN hOTI OUK HDUNHQHSAN EISELQEIN DI' APISTIAN. And note, but the way,
the implicit parallelism of APEIQHSASIN and DI' APISTIAN.

Will this accounting work?
=======================
>As many of you already realize, there are many textual variants in this
>verse involving the participle SUGKEKERASMENOUS. They fall into two
>groups, one reading it as accusative singular -OUS, and therefore making
>it referent to EKEINOUS, "those people", and the other as nominative
>singular -OS, referent to hO LOGOS THS AKOHS, "the word that they heard
>(lit. 'the word of hearing')". Metzger in his textual commentary on the
>GNT gives the committees reasons for preferring the former reading. What I
>am interested in here is not so much in the textual issue, as the syntax
>of the verse if we read the accusative plural SUGKEKERASMENOUS. Before
>posting this, I searched the archives under SUGKERANNUMI and found three
>hits from December 1998. The only one of importance here is Carl Conrad's
>reply to a question originally posted by Theodore H. Mann. Carl wrote:
>"Upon looking more closely at this verse it looks to me as if a more
>interesting question is raised by the fact that SUGKEKERAS
> MENOUS
> is followed by two datives." Precisely. The BDAG would have us understand
>the construction thus: "The word that they heard did not benefit those who
>were not united with those who listened in faith." They interpret the
>words THi PISTEI TOIS AKOUSASI as "those who listened in faith", making
>TOIS AKOUSASI the dative complement of SUGKERANNUMI and THi PISTEI
>dependent on TOIS AKOUSASI. Personally, however, the word order seems
>unusual to me if this was the sense intended. I would have expected
>something like TOIS THi PISTEI AKOUSASI, or perhaps TOIS AKOUSASI THi
>PISTEI for "those who heard in faith." Looking up the verse in
>Blass-Debrunner-Funk I found that they got around the difficulty neatly by
>following the reading of Codex Sinaiticus, which has the perfect
>middle-passive participle in the nominative singular. However, in section
>474(5) they state: "The participle is often separated from its adjuncts
>(classical) in one of three ways:..." To be brief, the third way that they
>  note,
> (c), is the placement of  at least one of the adjuncts before the
>article-participle unit. This, however, appears to be quite rare. Perhaps
>the example most to the point from the GNT is Heb. 12:25: EPI GHS
>PARAITHSAMENOI TON CRHMATIZONTA, where the meaning from context appears to
>be "those who have refused him who gives divine warning on earth," thus
>making EPI GHS.. TON CRHMATIZONTA equivalent to TON EPI GHS CRHMATIZONTA.
>What are the chances of Heb. 4:2 being another example of this usage (THi
>PISTEI TOIS AKOUSASI=TOIS THi PISTEI AKOUSASI), as the BDAG seems to imply
>that it is? This is not the angle taken by Carl in his Dec. 1998 post --
>he would make THi PISTEI the complement of SUGKERANNUMI, leaving TOIS
>AKOUSASI pretty much out in the cold -- but he expresses some confusion
>about the verse, "I think I'm missing something here." In view of this
>acknowledged difficulty, I would appreciate some further guidance here
>from Carl or those on the list that are well-versed in G
> reek
> syntax.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Mark Lama
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list