[B-Greek] Hebrews 1:8
CWestf5155 at aol.com
CWestf5155 at aol.com
Wed Jun 30 13:12:43 EDT 2004
In a message dated 6/30/2004 10:35:03 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
dhoxworth at charter.net writes:
><Robert Newman>
>Whilst these questions are of interest to me, I have found a careful
consideration of the context here to be most helpful in making the meaning of the
verse clear.
<doug>
i agree. but since it seems a very difficult decision to make since QEOS here
could legitimately be either the predicate nominative or vocative, would vv.
9-12 help us decide which one would make more sense? how about any parallelism?
i've heard people (e.g., wallace) say that the MEN...DE construction
strengthens the idea that QEOS is vocative here, but i'm still unclear as to precisely
why that would be. perhaps someone could explain that in more detail.
Doug Hoxworth
Luther Rice Seminary
<Cindy>
Placing this passage in even a larger context of 1:1-14 is helpful but not
conclusive in both interpreting the MEN...DE construction and the use of PROS.
1:1-4 constrains the verses, stating that God spoke to us through the Son in
contrast with other messengers: the prophets and the angels. The contrast
between how God spoke with the son versus how he spoke with the angels is
continued in the string of quotations from the Hebrew Bible.
In each of the other quotations about the Son with the exception of 1:5b (EGW
ESOMAI AUTWi EIS PATERA KAI AUTOS ESTAI MOI EIS HION) is characterized by
direct address: the Son is the subject (2nd person sing) or addressed, including
1:9 which is part of the same quotation. At any rate, each quotation
"concerning" the Son is either direct address and/or characterized by the first (1:5b)
and second person, suggesting intimacy.
What I found most interesting about this is that in Hebrews, the first person
is typically used in OT quotations where God is speaking, but not for the
author (very unlike Paul) until 11:32 and then 13:18ff.
However, when the quotation concerns angels in 1:6, 7 the third person is
used. The MEN...DE construction contrasts the angels as messengers and the Son as
a messenger in part by the use of direct address contrasting the level of
intimacy. Of course, this is not conclusive but it may be suggestive.
Note that in v. 13, PROS is used in the context of direct address, though it
is semantically a negative statement--God did not say this directly to the
angels.
Making too sharp of a division between "concerning" and direct address in
regards to PROS is not helpful--it can be both at the same time.
Cindy Westfall
Adjunct Faculty Denver Seminary
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list