Hebrew 2:16

Johnv: "You're correct. What you miss, however, is the 1611's use of the phrase. To "take upon" or "take hold of" in Elizabethan contexts is to offer assistance. In other words, to give aide. Askjo is no doubt trying to make a big deal about the KJV reading the Jesus takes on the "nature of", but in today's English, we would say
give assistance". It's NOT an error in a translation, either in the KJV or elsewhere. It's an issue of the evolution of language text and use over time."

Without agreeing with Askjo (since I have *no* idea what he is talking about since he won't tell us), I demur, and will continue to do so on the basis of 1Tim 6:12, 19, as stated above. The burden to prove the legitimacy of the rendering "help" or "give assistance" is on those who choose such a rendering in their translations.

Even BAGD (I have an older edition) claims "be concerned with, take an interest in; help" is supported for Heb 2:16 *only* by an appeal to Sirach 4:11, which I have already noted can be as easily read as "take hold" in context.

Lexically, there simply is little or no justification for the translation "help" in Heb 2:16, and an incarnational Christology seems the be the proper translation, in which case the KJV translators got it correct, but the modern versions (for whatever reason) have missed the boat.

Even Louw & Nida, 35.1, state that in Heb 2:16 "Though the meaning of 'help' is possible..., the more generally accepted interpretation is 'to be concerned with' or 'to take an interest in' -- which is another supposed definition which does not find proper lexical support, but which does serve to critique any translation that has opted for "help" in this context.

I would like to see some *real* support for the MV rendering of EPILAMBANW as opposed to understanding the term as "taking upon" (literal meaning) himself the essential nature of man as opposed to angels. The full context of Heb 2 seems to demand this meaning, and not merely "help".

As for the claim that "To 'take upon' or 'take hold of' in Elizabethan contexts is to offer assistance, please provide evidence of such. I note in the KJV that "take upon" occurs only in the italicized words of 2Cor 8:4, and does not there mean to offer assistance; nor does "take hold" seem to provide any support (cf. Lk 20:20, 26). Show me evidence that this claim is something more substantial than a claim blowing in the wind.

 

From reading the source texts, the NIV appears to be the most clear overall. Strictly my two cents, though. You're entitled to yours. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, since, when reading the entire chapter, no doctrine is altered from the original source texts.

 

Ziggy, interestingly, my Dutch Bible, translated from the TR, reads "gives help to". I can't find my copy of the Gutenberg, so perhaps someone else can post what it says in German.

 

Then, perhaps you can clarify yourself. That would be a first for you on this thread.

 

That's not what the TR says in this verse. You'd have to add to scripture to get that understanding out of this verse. However, your statement does not contradict scriptural doctrine as a whole. It simply is not what this verse says.

 

mioque: “Ziggy, interestingly, my Dutch Bible, translated from the TR, reads "gives help to". I can't find my copy of the Gutenberg, so perhaps someone else can post what it says in German”

Lutherbibel: “Denn er nimmt sich ja nicht der Engel an, sondern des Samens Abrahams nimmt er sich an.”

Elberfelder 1905: “Denn er nimmt sich fuerwahr nicht der Engel an, sondern des Samens Abrahams nimmt er sich an.”

Dutch Statenvertaling: “Want waarlijk, Hij neemt de engelen nien aan, maar Hij neemt het zaad Abrahams aan.”

Dutch NT Leidsche Vertaling 1912: ““Want hij trekt zich immers het lot der engelen niet aan, maar wel het lot van Abrahams kroost.”

 

Askjo: "Nida does not believe in the Bible"; "MVs are lousy to tell you what Hebrew 2:16 means."

Well, Askjo, YOU certainly believe in the Bible, right? So how about YOU finally telling everybody about the correct interpretation of this verse instead of your usual drive-by shootings?

 

Further evidence regarding EPILAMBANW in Heb 2:16:

`````````````````````````````````````
Vincent’s Word Studies (4:406): “The Greek and Latin Fathers explained the verb in the sense of appropriating. He did not appropriate the nature of angels.

```````````````````````````````````````
Ellingworth and Nida, Translator’s Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews, 46-47: “The meaning of the word ... has been the subject of furious argument for centuries, and the problem is not yet certainly solved ... God ‘takes on’ human nature [according to the KJV, JB, Phps, Luther]....

````````````````````````````````````
Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia Commentary on Hebrews, p. 94:

“The verb ... EPILAMBANETAI basically means ‘to lay hold of,’ and there is no need to see any other metaphysical sense involved ... Nor does it mean specifically ‘prefer’ or even ‘help’ ...

p. 94 n.174, “The term is related to the incarnation by such patristic authors as Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius, and in the Reformation by Calvin....

p.94 n.175: “Spicq is rightly critical of the evidence for such a reading [as “help”]. One text frequently cited to support this sense, Sir[ach] 4:11, seems rather to use the same imagery ... involved here....’Wisdom exalts her sons and grasps on to those who seek her’”.

````````````````````````````````````
Westcott, Commentary on Hebrews, p.55:

“The versions generally give the sense of ‘take hold of’ in the sense of appropriating. Syr[iac] ... ‘he did not appropriate their [i.e. angels’] nature. O.L. adsumpsit or suscepit, Vuilg. apprehendit.”

“This sense is given, I believe, uniformly by the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, who understand the phrase of the fact and not of the purpose of the Incarnation.”

“It is remarkable that this interpretation [i.e. “to help”] was not given by anyone, as far as I know, before Chatillon in his Latin version [late 12th early 13th century], and then it called out the severe condemnation of Beza.”

`````````````````````````````````````
Seems to me like this should basically settle the question. So *why* are all the MVs so keen to render this passage as “help”?

 

Askjo: "None of them are TR men."

Bang! Bang! Bang!

Another drive-by....and totally irrelevant to the point being made....Typical.

 

Well, we're still waiting for Askjo to get to the point, in his own thread no less.

Is anyone surprised?

 

Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it!

 

MVs failed the doctrine of Jesus Christ on Hebrew 2:16.

The only failure here is my failure to see why "because the KJV says something else, and the KJV is always right, yadayadayada" constitutes proof of anything.

 

Your saying so does not make it so, Askjo. Go figure that circular reasoning would again come into play.

AVL1984