Hebrews 10:25 the implied object of παρακαλοῦντες

[dougknighton]

Hebrews 10:25 μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καθὼς ἔθος τισίν, ἀλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες, καὶ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ὅσῳ βλέπετε ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέραν.
While all of the English translations I’m aware of gloss Hebrews 10:25 something like “not abandoning our meetings/gatherings ... but encouraging each other /one another,” I'm wondering if the implied object of the participle παρακαλοῦντες should be τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν instead. Since this is the object of ἐγκαταλείποντες, then why wouldn’t it be the implied object of παρακαλοῦντες? Then we would understand the writer to say “not abandoning our gatherings ... but encouraging them.”

[Peng Huiguo]

ἐπισυναγωγὴν is incomplete; it should be read as ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, gathering among our/yourselves. This together with the preceding hortatories (v. 23 κατέχωμεν, v. 24 κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους) creates a hortatory sense here as well. Even if you were to go only with your English gloss "not abandoning our gathering... but encouraging our gathering (which we're a part of)", wouldn't "one another" suggest itself?

[Barry Hofstetter]

It would be very unusual to have a non-personal noun such as ἐπισυναγωγή as the object of παρακαλέω. Much better, as Dimi has shown above, to supply ἑαυτούς as the object.

[MAubrey]

παρακαλοῦντες doesn't need anything supplied at all. Its a reciprocal middle.

[Stephen Carlson]

παρακαλοῦντες doesn't need anything supplied at all. Its a reciprocal middle.

Middle? Looks active to me.

[MAubrey]

παρακαλοῦντες doesn't need anything supplied at all. Its a reciprocal middle.

Middle? Looks active to me.

Sigh. Yes. Yes it is. Post-travel brain fog?

[dougknighton]

Barry suggested that it would be unusual to have an impersonal noun as the object of παρακαλοῦντες, which is true. But, as Dimi pointed out, the ‘complete’ object (τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν) is essentially personal. One reason I object to using ἀλλήλους as the implied object is that it is too far back in the sentence to be a ready reference when the reader supplies the missing word. But my primary objection to construing the implied object of παρακαλοῦντες as ἀλλήλους is that the negation of ἐγκαταλείποντες and the negative conjunction between the two participles seems to require that the verbs be opposed in meaning. Παρακαλέω has such a wide range of meanings that it seems reasonable to apply the one that would make sense in a ‘not/but’ construction. So ‘not forsaking/abandoning’ seems better opposed by παρακαλέω construed as ‘urging/calling for’ rather than ‘encouraging.’ The logic in this construal is that if they quit gathering, they won’t be able to learn how to be more actively loving to members of the fellowship; therefore, they need to urge people to get together. When I put the entire sentence of 10:24–25 together I end up with this gloss:

κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰς παροξυσμὸν ἀγάπης καὶ καλῶν ἔργων
Observe well/look closely at one another until love and good works are stimulated [in the one doing the looking],

μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καθὼς ἔθος τισίν, ἀλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες
[which means] don’t abandon your gathering together, as is the custom of some, but rather urge/call for [these gatherings].

[Barry Hofstetter]

Barry suggested that it would be unusual to have an impersonal noun as the object of παρακαλοῦντες, which is true. But, as Dimi pointed out, the ‘complete’ object (τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν) is essentially personal.

This is wrong. There is no "complete object." ἐπισυναγωγήν is the object of ἐγκαταλείποντες. ἑαυτῶν is an objective genitive dependent on ἐπισυναγωγήν. I encourage you to study the word παρακαλέω in its various usages and contexts -- it's simply not used in the way that you suggest. And ἐπισυναγωγή is not a personal noun.

One reason I object to using ἀλλήλους as the implied object is that it is too far back in the sentence to be a ready reference when the reader supplies the missing word.

Not really, considering the writer's relatively complicated syntax. One could just as easily supply ἑαυτούς in the same reciprocal sense.

But my primary objection to construing the implied object of παρακαλοῦντες as ἀλλήλους is that the negation of ἐγκαταλείποντες and the negative conjunction between the two participles seems to require that the verbs be opposed in meaning. Παρακαλέω has such a wide range of meanings that it seems reasonable to apply the one that would make sense in a ‘not/but’ construction. So ‘not forsaking/abandoning’ seems better opposed by παρακαλέω construed as ‘urging/calling for’ rather than ‘encouraging.’ The logic in this construal is that if they quit gathering, they won’t be able to learn how to be more actively loving to members of the fellowship; therefore, they need to urge people to get together. When I put the entire sentence of 10:24–25 together I end up with this gloss:

What negative conjunction? I think you are looking for a parallelism here which is not necessary to make sense out of the text.

κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰς παροξυσμὸν ἀγάπης καὶ καλῶν ἔργων
Observe well/look closely at one another until love and good works are stimulated [in the one doing the looking],

No -- "Observe" is too weak here, and εἰς cannot bear a temporal sense. Better to see it of purpose.

μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καθὼς ἔθος τισίν, ἀλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες
[which means] don’t abandon your gathering together, as is the custom of some, but rather urge/call for [these gatherings]. [/indent]

See above.

[Daniel Semler]

While this may not help a ton, there is a textual variant here attested by one 9th C witness (http://csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_33). It places εαυτους after παρακαλοῦντες. (I haven't been able to make it out in the images themselves alas but that's me not being able to find my way around a miniscule I'm afraid.) But perhaps an earlier editor/copyist felt as many translators have.

Thx
D

[dougknighton]

Barry suggested that it would be unusual to have an impersonal noun as the object of παρακαλοῦντες, which is true. But, as Dimi pointed out, the ‘complete’ object (τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν) is essentially personal.

This is wrong. There is no "complete object." ἐπισυναγωγήν is the object of ἐγκαταλείποντες. ἑαυτῶν is an objective genitive dependent on ἐπισυναγωγήν.

Mea culpa … I know the difference; that’s why I put ‘complete’ in quotes.

I encourage you to study the word παρακαλέω in its various usages and contexts -- it's simply not used in the way that you suggest. And ἐπισυναγωγή is not a personal noun.

I had looked at all 200+ instances of παρακαλέω in the LXX and the GNT. Here's some of what I found:

Isaiah 33:7 contains an instance in which παρακαλέω is used with a non-personal noun object: ἄγγελοι γὰρ ἀποσταλήσονται ἀξιοῦντες εἰρήνην πικρῶς κλαίοντες παρακαλοῦντες εἰρήνην. It seems that messengers would be sent out who would call for/urge peace.

In Colossians 2:2 the author uses παρακαλέω with a noun followed by the genitive pronoun: ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν; granted, in this case, παρακαλέω seems to mean ‘encourage,’ but the construction is not dissimilar.

In Titus 2:6 παρακαλέω takes an infinitive as its object, creating a kind of purpose clause: τοὺς νεωτέρους ὡσαύτως παρακάλει σωφρονεῖν. Other instances where infinitives are used as secondary objects in the same way include Romans 12:1; 2 Corinthians 6:1; Ephesians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:10; 1 Timothy 1:3; 2:1; Hebrews 13:9; 1 Peter 2:11; Jude 1:3.

It is followed by imperatives: 1 Thessalonians 5:14; Hebrews 13:22; 1 Peter 5:1–2; and used with a ἵνα clause: 2 Corinthians 12:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:12.

So it seems to me to well within the range of normal usage to infer a similar type of object in 10:25.

What negative conjunction? I think you are looking for a parallelism here which is not necessary to make sense out of the text.

I meant “adversative.” I’m not looking for “parallelism;” I’m seeing a not/but construction that negates one proposition in order to positively affirm another. As I said, I think this limits how much of the range of meaning of παρακαλέω can be used. If one insists on using some form of ἑαυτούς as the implied object, then I think one must supply another verbal idea to complete the thought, such as ἐπισυνάξαι.

No -- "Observe" is too weak here, and εἰς cannot bear a temporal sense. Better to see it of purpose.

LSJ’s first English gloss is “observe well,” which is what I used. ... I admit, I should not have used ‘until’ to convey the idea of purpose; I was trying to avoid the longer “for the purpose of” phrasing while trying to communicate the time element inherent in κατανοῶμεν.

Here’s a redo:
κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰς παροξυσμὸν ἀγάπης καὶ καλῶν ἔργων
Observe-well/look-closely-at/thoughtfully-consider one another for the purpose of the stimulation of love and good works [in the one doing the considering],

μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν, καθὼς ἔθος τισίν, ἀλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες
[which necessitates] not abandoning your gathering together, as is the custom of some, but rather urging/calling for [the gathering of yourselves] -- or [one another to get together].