[B-Greek] Hebrews 9:9 - past or present tense

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Mon Aug 8 07:20:41 EDT 2005


This message to be forwarded to list-members who wish to address what  
"Schmuel" says is a perfect-tense problem. Unfortunately it is posed  
not as a question about the Greek but about the virtues of the  
alternative published English versions. Let's just focus on the  
question of the meaning of the only perfect-tense verb in the text in  
question, ENESTHKOTA

Text of Heb 9:9 (NA27): hHTIS PARABOLH EIS TON KAIRON TON ENESTHKOTA,  
KAQ' hHN DWRA TE KAI QUSIAI PROSFERONTAI MH DUNAMENAI KATA SUNEIDHSIN  
TELEIWSAI TON LATREUONTA (NA27)

Text of Heb 9:9 (TR) HTIS PARABOLH EIS TON KAIRON TON ENESTHKOTA KAQ'  
ON DWRA TE KAI QUSIAI PROFERONTAI MH DUNAMENAI KATA SUNEIDHSIN  
TELEIWSAI TON LATREUONTA

As I see it, the feminine relative pronoun hHN in  KAQ' hHN in the  
NA27 text must refer back to PARABOLH as antecedent, whereas the  
masculine relative pronoun hON in KAQ' (h)ON in the TR text must  
refer back to KAIRON as antecedent. On the other hand I don't see any  
problem whatsoever with the perfect participle ENESTHKOTA, which does  
mean "present" or "currently at hand." So does the clause DWRA TE KAI  
QUSIAI PROFERONTAI really refer to any different time frame if the  
relative pronoun has KAIRON or PARABOLHN as its antecedent? I  
wouldn't really think so, since the phrase EIS TON KAIRON TON  
ENESTHKOTA must depend upon an implicit/unstated HN or ESTIN. So does  
the clause refer to PARABOLHN or to KAIRON, and does it really make  
any difference to our understanding of the text of Heb 9:9. The  
question is about any difference in understanding the sense of the  
Greek text, NOT about the constitution of the text of Heb 9:9.

On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:25 AM, Schmuel wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> Greetings to all, here is a perfect tense verb question that I do  
> not believe has been addressed.
>
> KJB
> Hebrews 9:9
> Which was a figure for the time then present,
> in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices,
> that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining  
> to the conscience;
>
> There is a small difference between the Received Text and the  
> Nestle-Aland  as in
> the TR hostis and kairos ('in which' and time) are both neuter,  
> while hostis is feminine
> in the NA text, agreeing with parabole 'figure' or 'parable'.  Yet  
> this does not seem to be
> a primary difference, as texts of both types are translated two  
> different ways.
>
> A good example of the translation difference can be seen between  
> the NetBible (Daniel Wallace)
> and the NASB.
>
> NetBible
> This was a symbol for the time then present,
> when gifts and sacrifices were offered that could not perfect the  
> conscience of the worshiper.
>
> NASB
> which is a symbol for the present time.
> Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make  
> the worshiper perfect in conscience,
>
> Other than doctrinal viewpoints, (which of course are not our base  
> issue here in translation) are there
> any grammatical elements that would make one translation superior,  
> or correct, and the other inferior, or incorrect ?  Although  
> doctrine should not be the base, my understanding is that it would  
> be proper to
> look at the tenses of verses in a similar context in Hebrews, so I  
> do not mean to rule out analyzing in
> a broader context.
>
> If you can help in sharing, please indicate if the thoughts you  
> give apply to both the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland underlying  
> texts.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Shalom,
> Steven Avery
> Queens, NY
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
>
> ---
> 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
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list