[b-greek] Re: Hebrews 3:11

From: Steven Lo Vullo (doulos@merr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 06 2001 - 21:04:07 EST


<x-flowed>
On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 01:06 AM, DEXROLL@aol.com wrote:

> (This is a second posting on this passage -- I got only one short
> comment
> last friday)
>
> 3.11 hWS WMOSA EN TH ORGH MOU:
> EI EISELEUSONTAI EIS THN KATAVPAUSIVN MOU.
> In doing some work on Hebrews I came across this use of the
> conditional
> as a sort of negative oath. Now, I can understand the basic meaning
> here as
> " if they shall enter my rest (or will they enter my rest ?) . No --
> they
> will not ! ( understood apodosis)." This phrase of course is repeated
> several times ( 4:3and 5).
>
> In 3:18 we have TISIN DE WMOSEN MH EISELEUSESQAI EIS THN
> KATAPAUSIN AUTOU EI MH TOIS APEIQHSASIN… Now this phrase seems
> to be
> from Numbers 14:23, although it is not the same as the Septuagint.
>
> The first phrase is an exact quote from the Septuagint in Psalm
> 95:11,
> which duplicates the Hebrew. All of this brings a number of questions:
>
> 1. Is the conditional as negative oath common in Greek or a Hebraism?
>
> Robertson (p.1024) says that it is "...an imitation of the Hebrew idiom,
> though not un-Greek in itself."
>
> 2. The phrase in 3:18 makes a simple negative statement, so what is the
> difference between the two?
>
> You have a simple conditional with the future indicative in one and a
> simple
> negation with the future infinitive in the second.

Hi David:

Please allow me to make just a few more comments on the above texts.
When last I responded to you, it was past 2:30 in the A.M., and my
comments were not as lucid as I would have liked. After I posted, I
thought of a few more things to say, but I had to get up for work at 7
A.M., so I had to fight the temptation.

First, in Heb 3.18, I don't think I made a clear enough distinction
between syntax and semantics in the case of EI MH. *Syntactically*, EI
marks a first class conditional clause subordinate to WMOSEN.
*Semantically*, EI MH facilitates the singling out of TOIS APEIQHSASIN
for focus, in order to emphasize that it was *those who were
disobedient* to whom the oath was made that they would not enter God's
rest.

Second, while in Heb 3.11 I think it is technically all right (primarily
for explanatory reasons) to describe EI as marking the protasis of a
first class conditional clause with an elliptical apodosis (see the full
conditional sentence in Psa 7.4-5, LXX), thus implying a
self-maledictory oath (which the full sentence would express), I think
we have here a fixed idiom that takes on its own semantic character. The
LEH lexicon of the LXX lists EI as meaning "*not* (after an oath in a
sense practically equivalent to a negative) Ps 94(95):11." After
comparing Heb 3.11 with Heb 3.18 more carefully, I think that,
semantically speaking, LEH is correct in taking EI "in a sense
practically equivalent to a negative." Note what happens when the author
of Hebrews converts the direct quote of Heb 3.11 into indirect speech in
Heb 3.18: EI EISELEUSONTAI becomes MH EISELEUSESQAI. Thus, EI is
converted to MH, lending support to the contention of LEH that EI in
these instances has the sense, semantically speaking, of a negative.
=============

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


</x-flowed>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:14 EDT