RE: Hebrews 2:11 and hO

From: Dale M. Wheeler (
Date: Thu Sep 11 1997 - 13:43:50 EDT

Eric Weiss asked:

>Is the first word of Hebrews 2:11 "hO", the masculine definite article
>(nom. sing.) - or "hO" (with accent), the neuter relative pronoun
>(nom./acc. sing.)? NA-20, 25, 26, and 27, and UBS3 (corrected) and UBS4
>(both first and second printing) show the relative pronoun, as does the
>Scrivener Textus Receptus. Perschbacher's REFRESH YOUR GREEK (using UBS3
>(corrected)) has changed it to the definite article (no accent) and so
>does Friberg's ANALYTICAL GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (using UBS 3). My
>inclination would side with the definite article - a neuter relative
>pronoun used in conjunction with a masculine participle seems unusual,
>and the second participle has the (plural) definite article (hO ...
>hAGIAZWN KAI hOI hAGIAZOMENOI ...), not a relative pronoun, in all these
>Greek texts.
>However, the Greek text editors seem to favor the neuter definite
>article. So what am I missing or misunderstanding about how the neuter
>relative pronoun functions here - if indeed it is the relative pronoun?


It is indeed an article. The enclitic conjunction TE has lost its
accent to the article. The same thing happens in:

Luke 15:2; 23:12; John 6:18; Acts 1:13; 5:24; 8:38; 13:1, 52; 14:11, 13;
17:14; 18:5; 26:30; 28:2; Rom 1:20, 26; Heb 9:2

BTW, unless you are misled into believing that I knew those places off
the top of my head, ala Carl Conrad who quotes ancient writers that way,
I didn't...I just ran my trusty GRAMCORD and got them (in about 5 sec).

Hope that helps...


Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:28 EDT