[B-Greek] Hebrews 9:28
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun Oct 11 09:31:01 EDT 2009
On Oct 11, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:
> <7491BDC6-E342-4FE5-B60E-ED7C0580F058 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> MIME-Version: 1.0
It really is annoying to try to read this with all the encoded
punctuation marks in the text; if you want to use MIME formatting,
can't you at least use the two-part form that has one part in plain-
> Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>> It seems to me that you want to understand CWRIS hAMARTIAS not as
>> adverbial -- describing HOW Chrisat will appear -- but as if it
>> were a
>> predicate adjective such as ANAMARTHTOS -- WHAT he will appear TO BE.
>> Moreover=2C if the phrase WERE to be understood in that sense of
>> ANAMARTHTOS=2C what would be the point of EK DEUTEROU? Perhaps: "He
>> will appear a second time=2C this time as sinless" But in that
>> case=2C ho=w
>> did he appear to them previously?
> LJ: You are right in saying that I want to understand CWRIS
> hAMARTIAS as a =
> predicate adjective=2C rather than as an adverbial=2C with hORAW an
> e verb (e.g.=2C in "He appeared sick" "appear" is an equative verb).
> r=2C my question was whether CWRIS hAMARTIAS could be understood as
> "without sin (on the part of those who are waiting for him)=2C" not
> ut sin (on the part of Christ)=2C" as you seem to have understood
> it. Is th=
> at grammatically possible?
I don't think so, any more than I think that CWRIS hAMARTIAS can at
all function as equivalent to ANAMARTHTOS.
>> Secondly=2C if you want to understand CWRIS hAMARTIAS as construing
>> TOIS AUTON APEKDECOMENOIS EIS SWTHRIAN=2C it seems to me that the
>> CWRIS hAMARTIAS is pretty far removed from that dative participial
>> phrase=3B it really has to be understood=2C I think=2C with
> LJ: That is the way it is construed in the Darby Translation. I=2C
> now think that the relative positions of OFQHSETAI and CWRIS
> hAMARTIAS in t=
> he sentence do not make it a syntactically possible translation.
That was exactly what I thought.
>> Again=2C with reference to the phrases cited in Romans 3:28 and
>> 4:6=2C it
>> srikes me that it would be as reasonable to understand CWRIS in those
>> instances too as meaning "without reference to." CWRIS really means
>> "separately from" or "apart from=2C" rather than "free from" I think
>> that a careful study of the full entry for CWRIS in BDAG would be in
>> orer here.
> LJ: In my next post I will show=2C with an analysis of the way this
> word is=
> used in the NT (37 times)=2C why "without reference to" is not the
> best tr=
> anslation of CWRIS in either Hebrews 9:28 or the two passages I
> cited from =
We await your suggestions of a better way to understand the phrase.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek