Re: Hebrews 6

From: Eric Weiss (eweiss@gte.net)
Date: Thu Nov 12 1998 - 09:23:05 EST


After examining this verse as part of a recent conversation - in which the
points that Kelley and Carl made were brought up (by me), I've had a couple
thoughts:

1) The "falling away" would necessarily come after the other events ("being
enlightened," "tasting," etc.), so in context I think it would be
reasonable to take it as an adverbial circumstantial participle. Even if it
is adjectival, their having "fallen away" would still be subsequent to all
these other things they did/participated in.

2) The fact that "having fallen away" is NOT followed by an "object" -
whereas all the other participles (except for the first one - "having been
enlightened" - though the TE, closely tying it with "having tasted OF THE
HEAVENLY GIFT," may mean it "shares" the object of "having tasted"? - also,
see my next point) do have an "object" - i.e., tasted THE HEAVENLY GIFT,
became partakers OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, tasted THE GOOD WORD OF GOD AND THE
POWERS OF THE COMING AGE - anyway, this lack of an "object" for "having
fallen away" MAY indicate that the author does wish it to be a
circumstantial adverbial participle. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

3) Does the TE between those who "have once-for-all been enlightened" and
those who "have tasted of the heavenly gift" imply that the hAPAX
(once-for-all) applies to both their "enlightenment/illumination" AND their
"having tasted"? I can't see that hAPAX would apply to ALL the participles
- and certainly not to "having fallen away" if PARAPESONTAS is adjectival.

4) Not having a Greek text of Justin Martyr's First Apology, when he uses
the word "illuminated" (under his chapter 65 or somewhere around there -
it's his chapter on Christian Baptism) to describe baptism, is it the same
word as here, i.e., FWTIZW?

5) On to theology (but in the context of the Greek text): To me, the GAR in
6:4 means the author is giving the explanation/reason/basis for 6:1-2:
i.e., the REASON one should not again (PALIN) lay a foundation of
repentance (METANOIA) (from dead works) is because if a person has
once-for-all been enlightened, etc., and (then) has fallen away, it is
impossible to again (PALIN) renew them to repentance (METANOIA). Thus, this
would most likely refer to believers who apostasized.

6) With respect to an earlier post, I believe by Dale Wheeler(?) (I
apologize to Dale if this wasn't his post or his point), where those who
fell in the desert had nevertheless been "delivered" from Egypt, etc. -
hence this "falling away" could not be a loss of salvation, but perhaps a
loss of rewards - the seeming close relation of chapter 6 to the end of
chapter 10 - "no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" - indicates to me
that it's talking about loss of salvation - and, contra to the statement
that "burning" refers to a cleansing/restorative rather than a destructive
act, the branches that produce no fruit are "burned" in John 15:6 and Jesus
"burns" the chaff in the gospels - so I think a good case can be made that
the burning in 6:8 is a burning to destruction.

Any thoughts?

On 10/28/98, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
> At 4:27 PM -0800 10/27/98, Kelley Mata wrote:
> >I have always wondered why most translations render parapesontas in Hebrews
> >6:6 as an adverbial participle while all the preceding participles in that
> >passage (which are in the same coordinating construction) are translated as
> >adjectival and as conditional. This has always seemed strange to me. Why
> >the change?
> >Anyone have any suggestions?
>
> Interesting question, and, I think, a legitimate one. The Greek text of Heb
> 6:4-6: (4) ADUNATON GAR TOUS hAPAX FWTISQENTAS GEUSAMENOUS TE THS DWREAS
> THS EPOURANIOU KAI METOCOUS GENHQENTAS PNEUMATOS hAGIOU (5) KAI KALON
> GEUSAMENOUS QEOU hRHMA DUNAMEIS TE MELLONTOS AIWNOS (6) KAI PARAPESONTAS
> PALIN ANAKAINIZEIN EIS METANOIAN, ...
>
> Certainly the chief subject of ADUNATON ... PALIN ANAKAINIZEIN EIS
> METANOIAN must be the substantival participle TOUS hAPAX FWTISQENTAS. The
> question is whether the succeeding participles, GEUSAMENOUS, GENHQENTAS,
> and GEUSAMENOUS are linked by conjunctions so that they are really part of
> TOUS hAPAX FWTISQENTAS. I think it can be reasonably argued that they are,
> but IF they are, then I think it is reasonable to understand PARAPESONTAS
> also as attributive rather than adverbial, thus yielding the sense: "those
> who have once been enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and have
> become partakers of holy spirit and have tasted the word of God and
> miracles of the age-to-come and have fallen away ...; that is to say, it is
> reasonable to understand the TOUS following GAR as including all of these
> aorist participles within the large substantive, inasmuch as the
> conjunctions, indeed the tightly-linking conjunctions TE ... KAI, seem
> intended to constitute all of them into a single characterization of these
> particular 'backsliders.' It is possible, I suppose, to understand the KAI
> preceding PARAPESONTAS as adverbial rather than as a conjunction, "even
> after they have fallen away" and in that way make this participle different
> from the rest, therefore circumstantial and adverbial rather than
> attributive--BUT at least as convincing a case (if not a more convincing
> one) can be made for the KAI before PARAPESONTAS as a conjunction parallel
> to the TE following GEUSAMENOUS and the KAI preceding METOCOUS GENHQENTAS
> and the KAI preceding KALON GEUSAMENOUS QEOU hRHMA.
>
> My guess is that the reason translators have taken that final participle
> PARAPESONTAS as adverbial-circumstantial is that they want to construe it
> with the infinitive PALIN AKANAINIZEIN rather than with the series of
> substantival participles introduced by TOUS, and I would guess also that
> they are emboldened to this view by the fact that the other participles all
> describe the positive consequences of successful conversion while
> PARAPESONTAS refers to 'backsliding.'
>
> Nevertheless, upon close examination of this whole sequence, it seems to me
> that any explanation of the KAI preceding PARAPESONTAS as merely adverbial
> rather than conjunctive is highly suspect. Consequently I think I would
> join Kelley in what I take to be a protest against the understanding of
> this sequence by "most translations."
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics/Washington University
> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:07 EDT