Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14

[David Miller]

David Miller's comments in blue.   ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Back to Heb 10:14     John responds   David wrote this: Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars.  A.T. Robertston in "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way:   "But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive.  Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18.  There is no notion of purpose in "hago ntes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)." "durative" in this application is nothing more than a description of an action that began at some time in the past and continues into the present time. Not true. You are over-simplifying the problem of tenses in Greek to English translation. Read Robertson's grammar on page 821. "The translators of our English version have failed more frequently from their partial knowledge of the force of the tenses than from any other cause." See also, "We have a great wealth of tenses in English by means of auxilliary verbss, but they do not correspond with any of the Greek tenses." Robertson divides the durative type action into numerous categories, of which your definition above (past action still in progress) is only one. You can find it on page 892 (h). The Hebrews 10:14 passage is not placed by Roberston in this definition. He discusses it as an example under c, Descriptive Durative. This means that he views it only as descriptive linear action. when the passive is attached, "being sanctified" is almost forced into the equation. Passive has little to do with putting "being" in there. The word "being" is put in only if you read the Greek to be indicating a continuous, repetitive process. This is what is under question here. Does the Greek really carry this concept in what it says, or it it only one of our possible renderings? The passive voice has to do with the form of the sentence, for example, "Jesus sanctifies us" would be active voice, but "we are sanctified by Jesus" would be passive voice. Wording it in the passive form puts more emphasis on us being sanctified rather than on the one who sanctifies us. The passive voice does not attach this word "being" into the equation. The KJV takes that option away. Sorry, John, but I repeat: The KJV is present passive. The Greek is present passive. So the KJV does not take anything away in terms of its translation of "present passive." The only way the KJV might take away anything is if the action in the Greek truly means a repetitive or iterative ongoing process. If this could be proven, then the KJV would not point people as forcefully to this meaning as it should. However, if the Greek does not have this force, as Robertson argues, then the KJV might be a better translation than your personal preference.   You are correct in saying that "are sanctified" is not past tense -- but that is not how many will see this passage and that is or was the point of this discussion. It was Deegan who said "... its past tense, so what is the problem?" ---------------- illustrating THE problem. Our sanctification is both timeless and not of our own doing. The KJV does not give the average reader this point of view .................. the NKJV does, on the other hand. Fair enough, but it is your theology which is guiding your translation rather than your knowledge of Greek. I cannot be dogmatic about this passage on the basis of linguistics because this exact form of the word is not found anywhere else. Nevertheless, my personal sense is that it is not as loaded with repetitive action as you seem to insist.   Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning.  He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept.  His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative. You make it sound as though Robertson actually had more to say on this subject than your very accurate quote of the ENTIRE discussion on his part: "But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive.  Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18.  There is no notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)." Onlookers to this discussion need to know that this is all there is from Robertson . The statement that he (Robertson) "He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept.  His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative" is a bit over stated in view of the full comment included in DM's post. I don't know why you think I made it sound like he had more to say. I quoted himand then referred the readers here to look at the quote and see for themselves howhe tells us to compare Heb. 10:10 for his reason why "descriptive durative is certainly all that is true" of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14." It seems veryclear to me that his reasoning is the same as Judy's reasoning. He looks at the context of the passage to find that 10:10 describes us being sanctified throughthe offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all. On this basis, he arguesas Judy does that we should not look to anything more than descriptive durativetype action.  At any rate, the original point is that of "being sanctified" versus "are sanctified." Comments on "durative" aside -- if we understand what durative does to the syntax. If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one.  I think if Robertson were here, he would have s ome comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14. Syntax is one thing -- abiding theologies are something else. I do not think that we should appeal to a passage's syntactical construct to redefine that of another (Heb 10:10 as used to overcome 10:14). In so doing, there are no checks on our theological imaginations. And that is exactly what we are doing, it seems to me .. i.e. "because I believe that sanctification is always a completed task, Heb 10:14 must be translated in that light." That is exactly what we are doing when we drag 10:10 into the discussion. On the contrary, 10:10 is part of the dialogue, and therefore it has merit for consideration that theology or even grammatical rules do not have. All of our knowledge of Greek is derived by its use in sentences from which we can readily see its use. We get into problems with rare words or rare forms where its usage is not readily observed. Surely you recognize that 10:10 is part of the thought process being carried forward by the author of Hebrews into 10:14. This is not like yanking a passage from a completely different book.   On a side note -- I own Robertsons' grammar and think it somewhat humorous that you would, therefore, think that I am familiar with a particular commentary in the book -- a 1400 page publication. But, thanks for vote of confidence !! I do have a tendency to over-estimate what you have read and understood. :-)   Peace be with you. David Miller.