Hebrews 5 7-8
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Mar 14 14:54:08 EST 2002
At 2:00 PM -0500 3/14/02, DEXROLL at aol.com wrote:
>5.7 hOS EN TAIS hHMERAIS THS SARKOS AUTOU DEHSEIS TE KAI hIKETHRIAS
>DUNAMENON SWZEIN AUTON EK QANATOU META KRAUGHS ISCURAS KAI DAKRUWN
>PROSENEGKAS KAI EISAKOUSQEIS APO THS EULABEIAS, 5.8 KAIPER WN hUIOS,
>hWN EPAQEN THN hUPAKOHN.
I've doctored up the transliteration a bit to conform to BG convention.
>I am going through Hebrews and came to this passage and thought I would
>solicit some comments from the others on the list.
>In the recent threads which concerned word order it seems hard to determine
>sometimes the referent for a verb, especially in this case where the verb
>PROSENEGKAS is delayed in the sentence. It seems to refer to DEHSEIS TE KAI
>IKETHRIAS, but are there alternatives to this ? Or do both verbs --
>PROSENEGKAS KAI EISAKOUSQEIS refer back to DEHSEIS TE KAI IKETHRIAS ?
No, EISAKOUSQEIS seems rather to be completed by APO THS EULABEIAS.
The author of Hebrews (whoever it may have been) writes in a more complex
rhetorical style than most other GNT authors and in many passages is far
more difficult. Yet in this instance I think the word-order is intelligible
enough if the elements are properly construed to reveal the "periodic"
structure. I like to outline (not diagram) a sentence like this thus:
hOS (subject of relative clause, the verb of which is ultimately EMAQEN)
EN TAIS hHMERAIS THS SARKOS AUTOU (adv. modifier of the two ptcs.)
DEHSEIS TE KAI hIKETHRIAS (object of PROSENEGKAS)
PROS TON DUNAMENON SWZEIN AUTON EK QANATOU (adv. modifier of
META KRAUGHS ISCURAS KAI DAKRUWN (adv. modifier of PROSENEGKAS)
PROSENENGKAS: first ptc. agreeing w/ subject hOS and governing the four
KAI (linking the two ptcs.)
EISAKOUSQEIS (second ptc. agreeing w/ subject hOS and governing the
immediately following unit)
APO THS EULABEIAS (adv. modifier of EISAKOUSQEIS)
KAIPER WN hUIOS (ptc. phrase functioning adverbially (circumstantial) with
EMAQEN (main verb of the relative clause initiated by hOS)
AF' hWN EPAQEN (= APO TWN PAQHMATWN AUTOU--as a unit qualifies EMAQEN)
THN hUPAKOHN (object of EMAQEN).
>You also have the difficult phrase EISAKOUSQEIS APO THS EULABEIAS, which has
>troubled many commentators. BAG notes that it could be translated either
>"heard because of his piety" or "heard (and rescued) from his anxiety". Now
>these are rather diferent ways of taking this phrase. It seems to turn on how
>to construe the preposition PRO
what preposition PRO? I don't see it.
>and whether to consrue the term EULABEIAS as
>either piety (godly fear) or anxiety. The first option seems more likely.
>There is a discussion by Bultmann in TDNT that agrees with the second option
>and refers to "the text being corrupt" and that one must add OUK before
>EISAKOUSQEIS. This seems quite odd to me?? Would that then mean "he was NOT
>heard because of his anxiety" ? How then would that connect to the next
>point that he learned obedience by the things that he suffered? What do some
>of you think ?
I suppose the idea implicit in that suggestion is that Jesus ultimately
learned obedience BECAUSE he prayed to God so fervently and in such agony
and WAS NOT listened to--did NOT have his prayers answered despite being
his Father's Son--because of his anxiety. This could describe the
Gethsemane prayer (esp. as described in the Lucan version) as a prayer of
intense anguish to be spared drinking the cup, only to realize that there
was no alternative to drinking the cup--so that this is the lesson of
imperative obedience. That's what I'm guessing Bultmann may have meant (but
I don't really know, of course, and I don't have the TDNT article before
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
More information about the B-Greek