X-Acknowledge-To: <S096556@UMRVMA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:48:21 CST
From:         Lonnie Schubert <S096556@UMRVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Questions for our Greek scholars

I have a couple of questions about the Greek that I was hoping a
few of our members with significant background in the language
could help me with.

First: specifically Heb 1:14 and John 11:9.
I have included a copy with a couple of extra verses.

(Authorized version (KJV) followed by Darby version, "*")
  Heb  1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to
  minister for them who shall inherit salvation?
  * Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for service on
  account of those who shall inherit salvation?
  2:1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the
  things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let [them]
  slip. {let...: Gr. run out as leaking vessels}
  * For this reason we should give heed more abundantly to the
  things [we have] heard, lest in any way we should slip away.

  Joh  11:8 [His] disciples say to him, Master, the Jews of late
  sought to stone thee; and goest thou there again?
  * The disciples say to him, Rabbi, [even but] now the Jews sought
  to stone thee, and goest thou thither again?
  11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If
  any man walketh in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth
  the light of this world.
  * Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any
  one walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the
  light of this world;
  11:10 But if a man walketh in the night, he stumbleth, because
  there is no light in him.
  * but if any one walk in the night, he stumbles, because the
  light is not in him.

Ok, in my Greek interlinear transliteration, I noticed that the
statements in question read, "Not there are..." as opposed to the
translated "Are there not...".  So, I did some searching, and
found that the idiom used in both places is supposed to be an
interrogative that implies an affirmative answer.  That is, the
translation is supposed to be correct, and the answer to the
stated question is supposed to be, "Well, of course; everybody
knows that."  In the 10 or so translations that I checked,
Heb 1:14 is virtually verbatim, without exception.  Likewise for
John 11:9 with one exception.  Phillips took the liberty of
paraphrasing to, "There are just 12 hours of daylight each
day..." (approximately, I don't have it with me at the moment.)

So, I am convinced that the translation is correct.  However, :-)
If the literal translation is accepted, the meaning is altered
significantly, but it is no less accurate, IMO.  Paul (or whoever
wrote Hebrews) would have been saying, "Not all angels are
ministering spirits sent to help us.  Therefore, we must be on
our guard to not let what we have heard slip away."  (Make
sense?)  And, Jesus would have been saying, "There are not just
12 hours in the day.  One can walk in the light of day, or one
can walk in the night.  By day one has the sun to see by, but at
night one stumbles around, not having an internal source of
light."  (With this interpretation, I would expect that Jesus was
implying to the disciples that there was nothing to worry about
from the Jews, for they were stumbling about in the night while
He was doing the work of the day [raising Lazarus in this
instance].)

So, my question is why are all the experts so certain of the
meaning of the idiom?  (I'm asking you to convince me that they
are right, and that the translations are correct, since I see
good reason to merely accept the literal translation.)

Second Question:

  Heb  2:10 For it was fitting for him, for whom [are] all things,
  and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to
  make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
  * For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are]
  all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the
  leader of their salvation through sufferings.

Everything I could find either lead me to believe that Jesus is
the one leading "sons to glory" or stated so directly.

Why is it almost universally translated such that it indicates
that God [the Father] is the leader/bringer of the sons as well
as the perfecter of Jesus through suffering?  (i.e., God
perfected Jesus through death/suffering, and this was fitting
(justified) because Jesus is the captain of our salvation, the
leader/bringer of us to glory, and for Him and by Him are all
things.  Nonetheless, the wording in the translation would put
the Father as the bringer/leader, not Jesus.)

Thanks for the help,
Lonnie Schubert
(PS  I'm leaving after Christmas for three weeks.  I do not know
how much access to bitnet I will have while I'm gone.  Thusly, I
would greatly appreciate prompt replies to this post, as I'll
only be assured of seeing them until Tuesday evening, 22 Dec.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU