Heb 1:1-3

Of course, that is the most basic generic definition. You are probably aware that ἀπαύγασμα can be active or passive.

Does this mean that the Son as the recipient of the χαρακτὴρ of the Father (cp εικόν Col. 1) is coordinated with the Son as the recipient of ἀπαύγασμα?
No, not necessarily. And I'm not sure that a category such as "recipient" is in play at all. By placing these nouns in apposition to the understood subject of the verb, he is describing the Son in terms of these nouns.
 
I was not attempting to create a category but rather to illustrate how one could see descriptions coordinated by και.

This stems from my question as to specifically in what way do you see that asyndeton produces unity of thought.

I see και in the prologue used to present two things to produce the same thought in typical Hebraic fashion. For example the early speaking is presented in multifarious ways, Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως. Repetition has the effect of creating cohesion.

I also see contrast between the Son and the prophets and the angels used to rhetorical effect, but without και.

There is also repetition with regards the role of the Son as the intermediate instrumental agent for God who is the causative agent in prophecy and in the creation of the world.

So, it seems consistent to see the Son reflect “the glory of God” the Father in the same manner that the Son reflects the image of God the Father. Here και is also used for coordination and cohesion.
 
Last edited:
Well, it looks like the Forums are finally back up and running (but not a lot of people know that yet!). I thought I would post the following just to get things going again in Biblical languages.


Hebrews 1:1-4

An Exegetical Exploration

Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις 2 ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας· 3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, 4 τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ’ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα.

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Heb 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. [ESV]

Introductory Statement

Hebrews opens with the theme of the revelation (λαλήσας, ἐλάλησεν) of God’s redemptive purposes in their eschatological fulfillment (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων) in the Son (ἐν υἱῷ). The central motif is the contrast between the old covenant (πάλαι… τοῖς προφήταις) and the New Covenant fulfilment in Christ, the latter being clearly superior (κρείττων, διαφορώτερον) to the former. Throughout Hebrews, this contrast will be described extensively in several ways, but in the first chapter it is the superiority of the Son as the revelator Dei versus the “shadows and types” of the OT prophets.

Grammatical and Stylistic considerations

While questions of punctuation are necessarily interpretative, from the modern perspective Heb 1:1-4 is one sentence. The main verb is ἐλάλησεν in vs. 2. The former λαλήσας is in fact an aorist participle clearly in this context marking antecedent action. ὃν in vs. 2 begins three relative clauses which describe the Son in terms of his nature (ὢν) and work (φέρων, ποιησάμενος). With exception of ἐκάθισεν and κεκληρονόμηκεν, all the verbs translated idiomatically as finite verbs in the ESV above are in fact participles, the precise nature of which will be discussed below.

The balanced nature of the clauses (as roughly equal in length) and the heavy use of participles (compared to the paratactic style of most NT writings) marks this sentence as periodic in the classical Greek rhetorical style. This rhetorical effect is heightened by the use of anaphora (ὅν, δι’ οὗ [and not the elided form of διά, common in classical Greek, but not the Koine of the NT], and ὅς). Another rhetorical feature employed by the writer is asyndeton. Each of the clauses has no conjunction joining it to the previous clause. The overall effect of these devices is to highlight the unity of the thought and to communicate the ideas in a particularly vivid and powerful way, the perfect introduction to the lofty themes the writer wishes to discuss throughout his treatise. [For definitions and examples of these rhetorical devices, see the Silva Rhetoricaewebsite (http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Silva.htm).]

Exegesis Proper

The writer begins by describing the varied nature of the Old Covenant revelation (Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως), most likely considering the different prophets and possibly the different literary genres used to express that revelation. This is in contrast to the revelation in the Son. The suggestion between the “one and the many” here suggest the authoritative and final nature of the Son’s revelation. The ESV above correctly captures the perfective nuance of ἐλάλησεν, “has spoken.” The aorist may sometimes be translated idiomatically by the English perfect, where the action is clearly completed. This contrast, and the finality of the revelation in the Son, is also emphasized by the chronological, or better, eschatological reference, “long ago” (πάλαι) vs. “in these last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων).

The relative clauses then describe the work and nature of the Son, and this description answers the question as to why the Son is the superior and final revelation of God.


The tight structure of the prologue to Hebrews utilizes the “hook” word “angels” from the end of the prologue to the beginning of what follows. Thus the word “angels” shows what the author wanted to emphasize and a strong clue as to the structure of the book. This continues in 1:6, 1:7, and 1:13. The argument in 1:14 is continued at 2:1-2 where the argument of the Son’s superiority to the angels continues.

The tight contextual cohesion is also cemented with grammatical anaphora.

In the article-noun pairs (e.g. τῶν ἀγγέλων) the article is inserted which serves to link ἀγγέλων pronominally to the preceding occurrences (1:4, 5, 7 & 13).

Anaphora is the strongest grammatical way a writer can link each argument to its preceding instance, and is a characteristic of both the prologue and what follows. The genius of the article is to identify and serves to logically bind the previous sections to the next argument.
 
I would see the Son as directly equated with God, understanding ὁ θεός as the vocative, reflecting the Hebrew use of אלהימ.


I agree that the nominative can be used for vocative, but have you considered that the prologue and what follows it frequently use anaphora for cohesion?

https://forums.carm.org/threads/heb-1-1-3.21/post-34056

I am sure you are aware that writers frequently establish the participants in their introductions and rely on this thereafter for cohesion.

ὁ θεὸς is identified as the Father (ie the one who has a Son) in verse 1.

Naturally, as in the example of τῶν ἀγγέλων, in a cohesive discourse, when the same articular term follows, the article is inserted to identify the entity as the previous occurrence.


(NA28) 8 πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ⸋τοῦ αἰῶνος⸌, oκαὶ ⸂ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος⸃ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας ⸀σου. 9 ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ⸀ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.

In 9, there are two occurrences of ὁ θεός which anaphoricly co-identify with the Father. It is highly likely that the insertion of the article before θεὸς in verse 8 is intended to identify θεὸς in 9 as the θεὸς in 8 and also in verse 1.

It appears that in the entire NT, when an articular substantive follows within one verse of the same noun or synonym having the same sense, the article has been inserted for anaphoric identification.

This is a strong grammatical argument against vocative in verse 8.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the nominative can be used for vocative, but have you considered that the prologue and what follows it frequently use anaphora for cohesion?

https://forums.carm.org/threads/heb-1-1-3.21/post-34056

I am sure you are aware that writers frequently establish the participants in their introductions and rely on this thereafter for cohesion.

ὁ θεὸς is identified as the Father (ie the one who has a Son) in verse 1.

Naturally, as in the example of τῶν ἀγγέλων, in a cohesive discourse, when the same articular term follows, the article is inserted to identify the entity as the previous occurrence.


(NA28) 8 πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ⸋τοῦ αἰῶνος⸌, oκαὶ ⸂ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος⸃ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας ⸀σου. 9 ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ⸀ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.

In 9, there are two occurrences of ὁ θεός which anaphoricly co-identify with the Father. It is highly likely that the insertion of the article before θεὸς in verse 8 is intended to identify θεὸς in 9 as the θεὸς in 8 and also in verse 1.

It appears that in the entire NT, when an articular substantive follows within one verse of the same noun or synonym having the same sense, the article has been inserted for anaphoric identification.

This is a strong grammatical argument against vocative in verse 8.
7 καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει,

Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα

καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα,

8 πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν,

Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,

καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ

Your exegesis is plausible, but I think there are some mitigating considerations (and yes, in part context!).

1) Notice the bold above. The first prepositional phrase can be read as "regarding the angels," since in the original context he is not talking to the angels. Not so, I think the second such phrase. Why? Notice the second person pronouns. It's therefore natural to read vs 8 (Psalm 45:6, 45:7 MT and 44:7 LXX) as addressed directly to the Son. Those second person pronouns (pronominal suffixes in Hebrew) suggest to me that the more natural reading is the vocative (but that's not all...).

2) In Psalm 45:7 MT I think the structure of the Hebrew clearly marks it as vocative, David addressed as God in his function as the direct representative of Yahweh (i.e., it would be unusual for a construct state to be interrupted by a suffix, כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים, and to read it as "the throne of God" the construct is necessary if you want to get to the understanding that it's God who is his throne). For that matter what exactly would the unparalleled idea of God as the throne exactly mean? To me that sounds like it's putting God in in an inferior position.

Maybe Jason or someone else whose Hebrew is amazing could weigh in here. But If I'm reading it right, and the LXX/NT texts are meant to reflect the meaning of the original, then I think we need the vocative here.
 
@Gryllus Maior

Thanks for the delightful discussion.

You say:
The first prepositional phrase can be read as "regarding the angels”. That's an understatement. One is hard-pressed to find it rendered other than “of the angels” or “about the angels.” (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-7.htm)

BDAG only gives “with reference to” as a gloss for προς at Hb 1:7f, where ‘f’ means ‘(and) following’.

I understand your point about the second person pronoun. But Hebrews 1:8 is an instance of the writer quoting a passage from the OT and applying it in another context. This is not direct or even necessarily indirect discourse. BDAG says of λέγω at 1:7 that it is something spoken περί τiνος.

In the structure of this passage, the argument as to how the Son is superior to the angels extends from the introduction in 1:4 continuously into the next chapter. If the Son is identified as God in verse 8, it should be the climax of the argument.

So, I see contextual cues that argue against vocative. On the other hand, as I have already posted, anaphora does clearly identify God in Hebrews 1 as the Father in 1:1, and 1:9, and if cohesive also 1:8. The cohesive and tight structure is pervasive.

I agree that either vocative or nominative is grammatical, and scholars support both views.

But I see the anaphor here as axiomatic.

I also do understand the difficulty at first glance of considering God as a throne. But, Psalms is a poetic book and the beginning of Hebrews also has poetic elements. It starts with a poetic rhythm using alliteration with ‘p’, something that continues (cp 1:1, 2:1-2; 10; 3:12; 9:26; 11:4; 12:11; 13:19)

Hebrews 1 also employs figurative meanings. Is the Son really literally απαύγασμα or is this a figure of speech? Is he literally a mark or impression from God as χαρακτηρ?

At Psalm 45 The Jewish Publication Society with “Thy throne given of God”, the REB with “God has enthroned you” and the RSV with “Your divine throne” treat the literal “God is your throne” metaphorically.

Add to this the fact that bible writers at times are very free in their application of the LXX, and I cannot see using these comparisons to overturn the solid Greek grammar of anaphora, which is axiomatic.

My hermeneutic is to first see what the grammar permits and then to see which contexts fit the grammar.
 

τράπεζα

New member
7 καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει,

Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα

καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα,

8 πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν,

Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,

καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ

Your exegesis is plausible, but I think there are some mitigating considerations (and yes, in part context!).

1) Notice the bold above. The first prepositional phrase can be read as "regarding the angels," since in the original context he is not talking to the angels. Not so, I think the second such phrase. Why? Notice the second person pronouns. It's therefore natural to read vs 8 (Psalm 45:6, 45:7 MT and 44:7 LXX) as addressed directly to the Son. Those second person pronouns (pronominal suffixes in Hebrew) suggest to me that the more natural reading is the vocative (but that's not all...).

2) In Psalm 45:7 MT I think the structure of the Hebrew clearly marks it as vocative, David addressed as God in his function as the direct representative of Yahweh (i.e., it would be unusual for a construct state to be interrupted by a suffix, כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים, and to read it as "the throne of God" the construct is necessary if you want to get to the understanding that it's God who is his throne). For that matter what exactly would the unparalleled idea of God as the throne exactly mean? To me that sounds like it's putting God in in an inferior position.

Maybe Jason or someone else whose Hebrew is amazing could weigh in here. But If I'm reading it right, and the LXX/NT texts are meant to reflect the meaning of the original, then I think we need the vocative here.
I certainly read it as vocative. It might be good to bring it forward: “Oh God, your throne is forever and ever; your regal scepter is a righteous scepter.” That is, God’s kingdom (his throne) will never end, and his judgment (his scepter) is always righteous. He doesn’t punish unjustly. That’s how I read the verse.

The Schottenstein edition of the Psalms takes אֱלֹהִים as if it were a genitive: “Your throne is from God, it is forever and ever, for the scepter of integrity is the scepter of your kingdom.”

The New Jewish Publication Society renders it: “Your divine throne is everlasting; your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.”

Most of the text’s context seems to be speaking about the Davidic king, but there are verses that seem to be speaking about God. For example, “I commemorate your fame for all generations, so peoples will praise you forever and ever” (45:18, NJPS). It doesn’t seem reasonable to praise a Davidic king forever and ever, if you ask me.

Jason
 

τράπεζα

New member
My hermeneutic is to first see what the grammar permits and then to see which contexts fit the grammar.
I generally avoid the idea of “what the grammar permits.” Meaning is not normally contained in grammar. Meaning is carried in semantics and syntax—the ideas contained within the language and the relationships formed between those ideas through how they are arranged and placed together. Grammar isn’t high on the goals of an interpreter of the text. Most of the time, grammar “permits” whatever someone wants it to permit (we’ve seen this on this very forum time and again), whereas discourse analysis and a breakdown of the syntax would not allow those interpretations.
 
I generally avoid the idea of “what the grammar permits.” Meaning is not normally contained in grammar. Meaning is carried in semantics and syntax—the ideas contained within the language and the relationships formed between those ideas through how they are arranged and placed together. Grammar isn’t high on the goals of an interpreter of the text. Most of the time, grammar “permits” whatever someone wants it to permit (we’ve seen this on this very forum time and again), whereas discourse analysis and a breakdown of the syntax would not allow those interpretations.

You have the opportunity to illustrate what you mean specifically and not generically.

That would help me understand (and evaluate) your statement.
 
Roger, in Phil 3:19:


ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες.

To whom does ὁ θεός refer, and how do you know?
 
And here's another one:

οἱ μὲν μάλιστα εὐδοκιμοῦντες ἔδοξάν μοι ὀλίγου δεῖν τοῦ πλείστου ἐνδεεῖς εἶναι ζητοῦντι κατὰ τὸν θεόν...

From Plato's Apologia 22a. What does τὸν θεόν refer to here?
 
Roger, in Phil 3:19:


ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες.

To whom does ὁ θεός refer, and how do you know?

I presume you refer to the fact that ὁ θεὸς occurs in verse 19 as the “belly” of those discussed in verses 18-19 and that the same noun occurs in verses 14-15 in a different sense.

My study of the anaphoric article is as an article noun pair which occurs closely after another noun that has the same sense. It may be the same noun, but even if it is, it must have the same sense. In verse 19, θεὸς is used metaphorically in a different sense that what preceded. However the same noun in the same sense is used anaphorically in 14-15.

Middleton calls this renewed mention and also applies it to synonymous substantives.

It must occur in a context close enough to the article noun pair. To simplify the comparison, I have conservatively limited “close enough” to within one verse, but also see that the anaphoric reference at times can be more remote.

The axiom I would use to identify θεὸς at Phil 3:19 is that of the definite equative predicate nominative in that verse. It does not conflict with the “axiom” of the anaphoric article for the reasons I listed.

As for Plato, you are aware I have not read Plato. Maybe someday. Is this text online? To properly answer your question on this, I would also need to understand the surrounding context. Don't expect a quick response. I will put it on my bucket list.

I do have a reservation for this comparison. In earlier forms of Greek the article was a demonstrative pronoun that gradually became the definite article. In any event, it would be wise to compare Koine to Koine.
 
I presume you refer to the fact that ὁ θεὸς occurs in verse 19 as the “belly” of those discussed in verses 18-19 and that the same noun occurs in verses 14-15 in a different sense.

My study of the anaphoric article is as an article noun pair which occurs closely after another noun that has the same sense. It may be the same noun, but even if it is, it must have the same sense. In verse 19, θεὸς is used metaphorically in a different sense that what preceded. However the same noun in the same sense is used anaphorically in 14-15.

Middleton calls this renewed mention and also applies it to synonymous substantives.

It must occur in a context close enough to the article noun pair. To simplify the comparison, I have conservatively limited “close enough” to within one verse, but also see that the anaphoric reference at times can be more remote.

The axiom I would use to identify θεὸς at Phil 3:19 is that of the definite equative predicate nominative in that verse. It does not conflict with the “axiom” of the anaphoric article for the reasons I listed.

As for Plato, you are aware I have not read Plato. Maybe someday. Is this text online? To properly answer your question on this, I would also need to understand the surrounding context. Don't expect a quick response. I will put it on my bucket list.

I do have a reservation for this comparison. In earlier forms of Greek the article was a demonstrative pronoun that gradually became the definite article. In any event, it would be wise to compare Koine to Koine.
So in other words, you know from context what the word means and how it used. You seem hung up on "anaphoric." What you need to do is learn to read the Greek naturally (and you do that by reading large amounts). The same with the Plato text, and don't be silly -- the definite article is used in Attic Greek as the definite article, and there is practically no difference syntactically between Attic Greek and Koine at this point. At any rate, my point was not so much the use of the article, as what θεός means, and that can only be determined from context. In the Apologia citation above the reference is to Apollo, but you can't know that except from context.

You wanted concrete examples of how context determines meaning, and there you have it. My impression is that you are aware of certain grammatical rules, but that you don't really seem to have an understanding of the language per se.
 
I don't believe that distinguishing between a literal and metaphorical use of θεός is merely based on context. There are no contexts where θεός = "belly" could be considered literal.

I don't maintain that there are not examples where context might be necessary, but I don't see how this is an example of that.

I am not sure what you mean about θεός being a reference to Apollo. That being said, if θεός immediately preceded the reference you gave and has the same sense but was not an identification of Apollo, I would consider that an exception from what I have observed in the NT.
 
I don't believe that distinguishing between a literal and metaphorical use of θεός is merely based on context. There are no contexts where θεός = "belly" could be considered literal.

I don't maintain that there are not examples where context might be necessary, but I don't see how this is an example of that.

I am not sure what you mean about θεός being a reference to Apollo. That being said, if θεός immediately preceded the reference you gave and has the same sense but was not an identification of Apollo, I would consider that an exception from what I have observed in the NT.
Well, I'm not sure why you don't understand, except that you seem to be holding on to a rather idiosyncratic definition, perhaps for theological reasons. Of course its a function of context, and I think most people can see that clearly. As for Plato, the context is an oracle that was given concerning Socrates at Delphi, so "the god" is a reference to Apollo. You seem rather confused about how context really works, and you seem so focused on the use of the definite article that you can't really see anything else.
 
Well, I'm not sure why you don't understand, except that you seem to be holding on to a rather idiosyncratic definition, perhaps for theological reasons. Of course its a function of context, and I think most people can see that clearly. As for Plato, the context is an oracle that was given concerning Socrates at Delphi, so "the god" is a reference to Apollo. You seem rather confused about how context really works, and you seem so focused on the use of the definite article that you can't really see anything else.

It seems you misconstrue me. I see that the anaphoric article co-identifies a previous occurrence of the same noun.

That's a textbook definition.

I have not made any claims as to what or who that noun identifies.

If you wish to call that "context" that's fine.

My only point is that ones view of context cannot overturn the identification of a genuine anaphoric article.

Your example from Philippians does not. Apparently neither does your example from Plato.
 
If I wish to call that context? Of course it's context. You keep beating the same horse, which suggests even more strongly that you have an agenda.
 
Last edited:
If I wish to call that context? Of course it's context. You keep beating the same horse, which suggests even more strongly that you have an agenda.

Again, my use of the anaphoric article does not assume a particular identification. Your use of Plato shows you did not engage my argument.

I don't argue that ο θεός has an invariant meaning in the NT. I don't argue that the only way to identify a referent is anaphora. You imply that was my argument when you deduce Apollo was ο θεός from your understanding of his writings and from the context as if this conflicts with my argument.

I did argue that when the anaphoric article is present it co-identifies with a previous reference close to it, in this case the same or previous verse.

If ones view of context forces an interpretation that the two synonymous nouns co-identified are not the same referent based upon dubious "context" I consider that to incorrectly violate an objective grammatical axiom.

If you read my post on how I arrived at the identification of ο θεός at Hebrews 1:1, it is the Father because He has a Son, Christ Jesus. That is context. The identification of ο θεός at 1:9b is also context.

What is not context is the grammatical axiom of the anaphoric article that identifies ο θεός at 1:8 as the same referent at 1:9ab.

That is grammar.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

New member
I agree that the nominative can be used for vocative, but have you considered that the prologue and what follows it frequently use anaphora for cohesion?

https://forums.carm.org/threads/heb-1-1-3.21/post-34056

I am sure you are aware that writers frequently establish the participants in their introductions and rely on this thereafter for cohesion.

ὁ θεὸς is identified as the Father (ie the one who has a Son) in verse 1.

Naturally, as in the example of τῶν ἀγγέλων, in a cohesive discourse, when the same articular term follows, the article is inserted to identify the entity as the previous occurrence.


(NA28) 8 πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ⸋τοῦ αἰῶνος⸌, oκαὶ ⸂ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος⸃ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας ⸀σου. 9 ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ⸀ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.

In 9, there are two occurrences of ὁ θεός which anaphoricly co-identify with the Father. It is highly likely that the insertion of the article before θεὸς in verse 8 is intended to identify θεὸς in 9 as the θεὸς in 8 and also in verse 1.

It appears that in the entire NT, when an articular substantive follows within one verse of the same noun or synonym having the same sense, the article has been inserted for anaphoric identification.

This is a strong grammatical argument against vocative in verse 8.
The articles in this passage most likely depend on the Hebrew writer's knowledge of the source material. You have no evidence that would suggest that he changed them for his own purposes.
 
Top