Theophylact of Ohrid: Heb. 6:20 πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν

[Stirling Bartholomew]

SBLGNT Heb. 6:16 ἄνθρωποι γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν, καὶ πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντιλογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὁ ὅρκος· 17 ἐν ᾧ περισσότερον βουλόμενος ὁ θεὸς ἐπιδεῖξαι τοῖς κληρονόμοις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς αὐτοῦ ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, 18 ἵνα διὰ δύο πραγμάτων ἀμεταθέτων, ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύσασθαι θεόν, ἰσχυρὰν παράκλησιν ἔχωμεν οἱ καταφυγόντες κρατῆσαι τῆς προκειμένης ἐλπίδος· 19 ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν καὶ εἰσερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος, 20 ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

ALFORD'S Greek Testament Heb. 6:20 πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν

It is disputed whether ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν is to be joined with πρόδρομος or with εἰσῆλθεν. Œc. and Thl. [Theophylact] adopt the former: Thl. explaining very fully: οὐκ ἠρκέσθη δὲ εἰπὼν πρόδρομος, ἀλλὰ προσέθηκε καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, εἰς πλείω πίστωσιν, ὡσανεὶ τοῦτο λέγων· οὐκ αὐτὸς ἐδεῖτο τοῦ ἐκεῖσε ἐλθεῖν· πῶς γάρ, θεὸς ὤν; ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ σάρκα διʼ ἡμᾶς ἔλαβεν, οὕτω καὶ δἰ ἡμᾶς εἰσῆλθεν ἐσώτερον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἵνα ἡμῖν ἀνοίξῃ τὴν ὁδόν. ὥστε ἀναγκαίως εἰσελευσόμεθα καὶ αὐτοί. ἢ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἵνα ἐντυγχάνῃ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τῷ πατρί, ὡς καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσῄει εἰς τὸ ἅγιον ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, ἐξιλασκόμενος ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ.

And so Thdrt., referring to John 14:1 ff. And similarly many moderns also. But Bleek, De Wette, Lünem., Delitzsch, al. prefer joining ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν with the verb, as more simple. One objection to this they do not seem to have seen: the emphatic position which it gives to ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, a position certainly uncalled for here. Besides which, the predicate πρόδρομος standing alone is bald and unexpected, whereas πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν fully justifies itself. And the subsequent words, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μ. ἀρχιερεὺς γεν. εἰς τ. αἰ., are no confirmation of the other view, as Del. maintains. The Lord’s entrance is sacerdotal, whether He is forerunner for us, or has entered for us. ὑπέρ is not pleonastic, as Œc.: but He is forerunner on our behalf, as representing, and introducing, us, who are to come after.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/alford/hebrews/6.htm

I spent some time sorting out Theophylact's comments. I found Alford’s analysis puzzling. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν might be thought of as adverbial in a such a manner that qualifies the entire clause. Alford’s observation about the preverbal placement of ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν also left me wondering. The major English translations appear to struggle with the problem, for example check the RSV/NRSV.

What exactly is at stake?

[nathaniel j. erickson]

What exactly is at stake?

It seems like the point of debate is whether 1) the passage is emphasizing Jesus' entrance εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος as a priestly act where he brings sacrifice "on our behalf" in the holy place, versus 2) emphasizing that Jesus is a forerunner ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν stressing that we too will also enter εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος.

1) would seemingly understand πρόδρομος mainly as applying to Jesus in his priestly role offering the sacrifice with the emphasis being on the sacrifice that he gives "on our behalf";
2) would emphasize that πρόδρομος means that the main host will also follow Jesus where he has gone, into God's presence, which would lessen the emphasis on the sacrifice and heighten the emphasis on the presence of a group that is going to follow Jesus into the Holy Place.

On view 1), ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν would certainly be construed as in the emphatic pre-verbal focal position, as Alford argues. On view 2), though, it seems like ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν would be considered part of the Noun Phrases headed by πρόδρομος , thus it would only be emphatic by virtue of being part of a pre-verbal Topic phrase, which are usually emphatic in some sense.

If I'm following what Alford is saying, I'm not sure there is an awful lot at stake here, though it is theologically interesting: is Jesus' priestly act being emphasized in terms of the sacrifice he brings/brought or in terms of the representative nature of Jesus' presence before God that is unique in that he actually will bring all his people into God's presence unlike the priests of the old covenant. Theophylact is definitely emphasizing view 2).

πρόδρομος seems to be fronted for emphasis because it is surprising, speaking from the framework of OT theology. What would it even mean for a priest to be the "forerunner," implying the following of another group, when he enters the Holy Place to sacrifice? Alford's comment about the emphatic position of ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν does not seem to carry a lot of weight. This could be emphatic because, theologically speaking, the identity of "ἡμῶν" is surprising--those who adhere to Jesus alone--and defining this group is one of the big theological tasks in Hebrews.

This does not really deal with how to construe ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in terms of where it is connected. I imagine this grammatical question would largely have to be worked out in terms of the broader interpretive decisions on how this text interfaces with the rest of Hebrews and the OT pictures it is drawing on.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Thank you Nathaniel for taking an interest. I appreciate your reading of the text and Alford's comments. I appear to be suffering from over familiarity with a certain set of ideas about constituent order. Alford's comments sound plausible enough. In the last few years I have become somewhat skeptical about received wisdom concerning constituent order and find myself unwilling to accept statements about emphasis.

The take away from choosing to join ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν with the verb or with πρόδρομος is hard for me to pin down.

BTW, I was wrong about RSV/NRSV. Reordering in the NRSV isn't a reflection of a change on the question under consideration.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

For example:

D. Harris [1] notes on:
Heb. 6:20 ὅπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Ἰησοῦς placed at the end of the clause for emphasis.
κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ at the beginning of the clause for emphasis.

While I'm quite familiar with various arguments used to support both of these observations. These arguments do not account for what I see reading Athanasius and other church fathers.

Does where we attach ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν depend on salience analysis? Alford doesn't want πρόδρομος abandoned on the left edge, an orphan all by itself. Why not? Because it draws too much attention. He doesn't think it warrants all that attention. Joining πρόδρομος with ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν relieves this problem? The complex constituent is still in the pre-verbal position.

I would abandon that line of thinking. Isn't the semantic content nearly identical attaching πρόδρομος to the verb? Perhaps not.

Nathaniel's reply addresses all of these questions.

[1]Hebrews: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament
By: Dana Harris B&H Academic / 2019