[B-Greek] Heb 5:8 KAIPER etc

Craig J newsgroupstuff at gmail.com
Tue Sep 12 17:35:43 EDT 2006


> That seems problematic to me; ever since Homer KAIPER as a 
> heightened form of the enclitic particle -PER has a 
> concessive semantic force.  
> All 5
> instances of KAIPER in the GNT are with participles. I think then  
> that this
> KAIPER in Heb 5:8 must also be taken with the participial 
> phrase WN hUIOS rather than with EMAQEN; you can't understand 
> the participial phrase as simply circumstantial.
> 
> 
> Carl W. Conrad

Thanks, those are good points, but I'm still a little uncertain about how
KAIPER fits into the whole clause. There also seems to be a few punctuation
options. Here is verses 5-10 for some context:

(5:5) hOUTWS KAI hO CRISTOS OUC hEAUTON EDOXASEN GENHQHNAI ARCIEREA ALL hO
LALHSAS PROS AUTON hUIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE
(5:6) KAQWS KAI EN hETERWi LEGEI SU hIEREUS EIS TON AIWNA KATA THN TAXIN
MELCISEDEK 
(5:7) hOS EN TAIS hHMERAIS THS SARKOS AUTOU DEHSEIS TE KAI hIKETHRIAS PROS
TON DUNAMENON SWiZEIN AUTON EK QANATOU META KRAUGHS ISCURAS KAI DAKRUWN
PROSENEGKAS KAI EISAKOUSQEIS APO THS EULABEIAS 
(5:8) KAIPER WN hUIOS EMAQEN AF hWN EPAQEN THN hUPAKOHN 
(5:9) KAI TELEIWQEIS EGENETO PASIN TOIS hUPAKOUOUSIN AUTWi AITIOS SWTHRIAS
AIWNIOU 
(5:10) PROSAGOREUQEIS hUPO TOU QEOU ARCIEREUS KATA THN TAXIN MELCISEDEK 

I'm thinking that 5:7 and 5:8 form a clause, with EMAQEN in 5:8 as the main
verb, with hOS at the beginning of 5:7 as its subject. (The whole sentence
may begin earlier, and finish later. hOS of 5:7 may refer back to CRISTOS in
5:5, or just SU in 5:6. Maybe the sentence finishes at the end of 5:10.)

After a quick check, it seems common in the other uses of KAIPER in the NT
that it contrasts with what has gone before, rather than after. In which
case I'm wondering what it contrasts with. I'm now thinking perhaps it
contrasts with KAI EISAKOUSQEIS APO THS EULABEIAS, with the sense that he
wasn't heard just because he was a son, but because of his reverence.

Alternatively, unlike other uses of KAIPER, it could contrast with what is
following (as Wallace says usually happens with concessional use of
participles), in which case it would be a concession regarding the phrase of
the main verb in 5:8, EMAQEN AF hWN EPAQEN THN hUPAKOHN, as per many common
translations (eg ESV "Although he was a son, he learned obedience through
what he suffered.").

But I'm thinking more the former, as it makes more sense to me. It might
outline like this (with a little rearrangement to a more English word
order):

hOS 
    EN TAIS hHMERAIS 
            THS SARKOS AUTOU 
    (PROSENEGKAS 
        DEHSEIS 
        TE KAI 
        hIKETHRIAS 
        PROS TON DUNAMENON 
            SWiZEIN 
                AUTON 
                EK QANATOU 
        META KRAUGHS ISCURAS KAI DAKRUWN 
    KAI 
    EISAKOUSQEIS 
        APO THS EULABEIAS 
        KAIPER WN hUIOS) 
EMAQEN 
    THN hUPAKOHN
    AF hWN EPAQEN 

The translation would be something like: "who, in the days of his flesh
(offering prayers and also supplications to the one who was able to save him
from death, with strong cries and tears, and being heard because of his
reverence though he was a son), learned obedience from the things he
suffered"

What do you think?

--
Craig Johnson
Brisbane, Australia
Blog Experiment: http://bloggledegook.blogspot.com/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list