[B-Greek] Hebrews 9:28

Carl Conrad 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:
> =20
>> 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  
> equativ=
> e verb (e.g.=2C in "He appeared sick" "appear" is an equative verb).  
> Howeve=
> r=2C my question was whether CWRIS hAMARTIAS could be understood as  
> meaning=
> "without sin (on the part of those who are waiting for him)=2C" not  
> "witho=
> ut sin (on the part of Christ)=2C" as you seem to have understood  
> it. Is th=
> at grammatically possible?
> =20

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  
>> with
>> TOIS AUTON APEKDECOMENOIS EIS SWTHRIAN=2C it seems to me that the  
>> phrase
>> 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  
> too=2C
> now think that the relative positions of OFQHSETAI and CWRIS  
> hAMARTIAS in t=
> he sentence do not make it a syntactically possible translation.
> =20

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 =
> Romans.

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 mailing list