A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants, and all current translations]
τίνες γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν; ἀλλ' οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωυσέως;

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005 [Cf. KJV and Douay-Rheims]
Tινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως.

In favor of Byz. Cf. 1CO 8:7 -
Ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ γνῶσις· τινὲς δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου ὡς εἰδωλόθυτον ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτῶν ἀσθενὴς οὖσα μολύνεται.

----------

Tίνες matches the immediate literary context of Hebrews (See Bengel's Gnomen); on the other hand, Tινὲς is more straightforward within the context of the sentence. Also, if "ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες" implies Joshua's faithfulness, that is an excellent fit with his implied faithfulness in Heb 12:29-30,

"By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to follow they were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days."

Furthermore, is it not accurate to say that Paul's usage in 1CO (Ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν... τινὲς) supports the Byz. Tινὲς for Heb 3:16? This Pauline parallel usage is absent from commentaries I've consulted. Is it not relevant?
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Is there an implied question here, or are you just expressing an opinion?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3352
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I guess the question is whether it is a question or a statement.

This is the kind of question where the immediate context is paramount. Verses 17-18 are also questions: so, would making v.16 a statement affect those as it would otherwise break the rhetorical parallelism?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Stephen Carlson wrote: February 16th, 2022, 7:40 am I guess the question is whether it is a question or a statement.

This is the kind of question where the immediate context is paramount. Verses 17-18 are also questions: so, would making v.16 a statement affect those as it would otherwise break the rhetorical parallelism?
Yes, and in this regard, the connective particles are of interest:

16Tινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν,
ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως.
17Tίσιν δὲ προσώχθισεν τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη; Οὐχὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν, ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ;
18Tίσιν δὲ ὤμοσεν μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν;
19Καὶ βλέπομεν ὅτι οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν εἰσελθεῖν δι’ ἀπιστίαν.
(RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005)

It seems to me that the shift from ἀλλ’ to δὲ supports the Byz shift from a statement to a question. Also, in terms of content, the flow of thought seems fine.

With the comparison passage (1 Cor 8:7), there is also a shift from ἀλλ’ to δὲ.

7Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ γνῶσις·
τινὲς δὲ τῇ συνειδήσει τοῦ εἰδώλου ἕως ἄρτι ὡς εἰδωλόθυτον ἐσθίουσιν,
καὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτῶν ἀσθενὴς οὖσα μολύνεται.
8Βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παρίστησιν τῷ θεῷ·
οὔτε γὰρ ἐὰν φάγωμεν περισσεύομεν,
οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν ὑστερούμεθα.
9Βλέπετε δὲ μήπως ἡ ἐξουσία ὑμῶν αὕτη πρόσκομμα γένηται τοῖς ἀσθενοῦσιν.
10Ἐὰν γάρ τις ἴδῃ σε τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον,
οὐχὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς τὸ τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίειν;
11Καὶ ἀπολεῖται ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἀδελφὸς ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ γνώσει, δι’ ὃν χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν;
(RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005)

Is there some reason 7b ought not be a read as a question (τίνες instead of τινὲς)?
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 16th, 2022, 11:05 am
16Tινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν,
ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως.
17Tίσιν δὲ προσώχθισεν τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη; Οὐχὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν, ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ;
18Tίσιν δὲ ὤμοσεν μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν;
19Καὶ βλέπομεν ὅτι οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν εἰσελθεῖν δι’ ἀπιστίαν.
(RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005)

It seems to me that the shift from ἀλλ’ to δὲ supports the Byz shift from a statement to a question.
To be clear: Tentatively, seems to me that the shift from ἀλλ’ to δὲ supports the Byz shift from a statement [some] in vs. 16 to questions [who?] in 17 and 18.

16Tινὲς [some] γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν,
ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως.
17Tίσιν [who?] δὲ προσώχθισεν τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη; Οὐχὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν, ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ;
18Tίσιν [who?] δὲ ὤμοσεν μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν;
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3352
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 16th, 2022, 3:19 pm To be clear: Tentatively, seems to me that the shift from ἀλλ’ to δὲ supports the Byz shift from a statement [some] in vs. 16 to questions [who?] in 17 and 18.
I don’t see that. The ἀλλά is on the second clause, while the δέ link the first clauses. What actually corresponds to ἀλλά is οὐχἰ and εἰ μἠ, all different ways of introducing corrections. The parallelism holds.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Stephen Carlson wrote: February 16th, 2022, 4:57 pm
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 16th, 2022, 3:19 pm To be clear: Tentatively, seems to me that the shift from ἀλλ’ to δὲ supports the Byz shift from a statement [some] in vs. 16 to questions [who?] in 17 and 18.
I don’t see that. The ἀλλά is on the second clause, while the δέ link the first clauses. What actually corresponds to ἀλλά is οὐχἰ and εἰ μἠ, all different ways of introducing corrections. The parallelism holds.
Got it.

16Tινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως.
17Tίσιν δὲ προσώχθισεν τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη; Οὐχὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν, ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ;
18Tίσιν δὲ ὤμοσεν μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν;
19Καὶ βλέπομεν ὅτι οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν εἰσελθεῖν δι’ ἀπιστίαν.
(RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005)
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: A case for Tινὲς instead of τίνες in Heb. 3:16

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: February 16th, 2022, 5:59 pm 16Tινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως.
17Tίσιν δὲ προσώχθισεν τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη; Οὐχὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν, ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ;
18Tίσιν δὲ ὤμοσεν μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν;
19Καὶ βλέπομεν ὅτι οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν εἰσελθεῖν δι’ ἀπιστίαν.
(RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005)
Heb 3
15ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι Σήμερον ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε,
Μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς ἐν τῷ παραπικρασμῷ.
16Tινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν,
ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως.

17Tίσιν δὲ προσώχθισεν τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη;
Οὐχὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν, ὧν τὰ κῶλα ἔπεσεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ;
18Tίσιν δὲ ὤμοσεν μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ,
εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν;
19Καὶ βλέπομεν ὅτι οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν εἰσελθεῖν δι’ ἀπιστίαν.
(RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005)

Re: Another attempt to make the case for Tινὲς.

Like vs. 15, vs. 16 is also a statement and not a question because:

1) γὰρ connects vs. 16 with the sense of vs. 15.

2) ἀλλ’ in vs. 16 connects with Μὴ in vs. 15.

2) Tινὲς and οὐ πάντες connect meaningfully.

3) This use of τινὲς to describe the wilderness generation is a literary echo of Paul's usage:

1 Cor 10
6Now these things were done in a figure of us, that we should not covet evil things, as they also coveted.
7Neither become ye idolaters, as some [τινες] of them, as it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.
8Neither let us commit fornication, as some [τινες] of them that committed fornication:
and there fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9Neither let us tempt Christ, as some [τινες] of them tempted and perished by the serpent.
10Neither do you murmur, as some [τινὲς] of them murmured and were destroyed by the destroyer.
11Now all these things happened to them in figure:
and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
12Wherefore, he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall.
13Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human.
And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able:
but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.

Paul appears to have chosen τινες/τινὲς strategically for its implication of "not all" since his goal was to say that resisting such temptation is not impossible.

Objections are welcome.
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”