[b-greek] Re: Hebrews 3:11

From: Steven Lo Vullo (doulos@merr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 06 2001 - 03:36:48 EST


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

> 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.

David:

I'll leave the first question to those who are more knowledgeable in a
wider range of Greek literature, but will comment on your second
question.

These are two entirely different uses of EI altogether. EI in 3.11marks
an oath. (Ps 7.4-5 shows us what this looks like with the apodosis,
which is rare. It is a self maledictory oath). EI MH in 3.18 is
subordinate to WMOSEN and is used to single out TOIS APEIQHSASIN for
focus and emphasize that it was THOSE WHO WERE DISOBEDIENT to whom the
oath was made that they would not enter God's rest. Note that while 3.11
contains a direct quote of the LXX of Ps 95.11, in 3.18 there really is
no attempt at direct quotation, just the author's own rhetorical
question. The infinitival clause MH EISELEUSESQAI EIS THN KATAPAUSIN
AUTOU constitutes indirect speech (here, indirect quotation of the
Scripture in view) introduced by WMOSEN, a verb of communication. It is
common for an infinitive to be used in indirect speech after such a
verb. So EI is a subordinating conjunction marking a first class
condition dependent on WMOSEN. The indirect speech is embedded in a
rhetorical question: "If it wasn't to those who were disobedient that he
swore they would not enter his rest, then to whom was it" (note the
preceding two vv.). The purpose here is to single out and focus on those
who were disobedient and didn't enter God's rest, because the author is
going to make the application to his readers by way of exhortation (cf.
vv. 6, 12-15; 4.1ff.).
=============

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