Dear Tom:
>á1. Does anyone happen to have S and H at hand so that s/he can set me
>ástraight on what they claim, and how they end upátranslating/interpreting
> the verse.
Sorry, not I. 8-(
>á2. What makes more sense here, neuter substantive or masculineáadjective?
JB Lightfoot in his posthumously published Commentary on Romans 1-7 has a
good short discussion on this (in case you don't have it to hand either):
"hILASTHRION] 'a propitiatory offering.' The word is of course an adjective
originally, e.g. Joseph. Ant. xvi.17,1 hILASTHRIOS QANATOS, 4 Macc.xvii.22
CEIRAS hIKETHRIOUS EI DE BOULEI hILASTHRIOUS EKTEINAS QEWi (see Wilkins
/Clav./ s.v., Steph. /Thes./ s.v. and Meyer here). This usage of the neuter of
adjectives in -HRIOS id frequent as applied to victims, e.g. KAQARTHRION,
CARISTHRION, DIABATHRION, NIKHTHRION, etc. A good example of the word in this
sense is Dion Chrysost. /Or./ xi. p 355 /ed./ Reiske hILASTHRION ACAION THi
AQHNAi THi ILIADI: and this seems to be the meaning here.
"On the other hand Vaughan prefers the rendering 'mercy-seat.' The word is
used in the LXX to translate KaPPoReTh, i.e. the lid of the ark of the
Testimony, translated 'mercy-seat' in the A.V. (see esp. Exod. xxv,17sq.,
xxvi.34, xxxi.7). Now the root KPR means (1) in Kal 'to cover,' (2) in Piel
(a) 'to forgive' or (b) 'to expiate,' 'appease' (comp James v.20, 1 Peter
iv.8 where 'covering' implies 'forgiveness'). Thus the LXX use of the word
hILASTHRION is a rendering of this secondary meaning, and is an example of the
Alexandrian tone of thought which sees symbolical meanings everywhere, and
which derives from homonyms theological lessons. Compare at a later period
Philo /de prof./ 19, (II. p. 561) THS DE hILEW DUNAMEWS, TO EPIQEMA THS
KIBWTOU, KALEI DE AUTO hILASTHRION, /Vit. Moys./ iii. 8 (II. p. 150) hHS
(THS KIBWTOU) EPIQEMA hWSANEI PWMA TO LEGOMEMON EN hIERAIS BIBLOIS
hILASTHRION... hOPER EOIKEN EINAI SUMBOLON FUSIKQTERON MEN THS hILEW TOU
QEOU DUNAMEWS HQIKWTERON DE DIANOIAS PALIN hILEW DE hEAUTHi AUTHS.
"Sometimes KaPPoReTh is translated hILASTHRION EPIQEMA (Exod. xxv.17,
xxxvii.6), which is a double rendering of the word; but elsewhere hILASTHRION
only. Thus we can see how the first part of the English word 'mercy-seat' has
its origin; but there is nothing either in the Hbrew or its Greek equivalent
to represent the idea of a 'seat,' a figure borrowed doubtless from such
passages as Lev. xvi.2, Numb. vii.89, Ps. lxxx.1, xcix.1, Heb. ix.5, where
the symbol of the Divine Presence is spoken of as appearing above the
Cherubim which shadowed the mercy-seat. The term 'mercy-seat' came through
the 'Gnadenstuhl' of Luther's translation, and the 'seat of grace' of Tyndal
and Cranmer. On the other hand Wyclif, followed by the Geneva Bible, adopts
the 'propitiatorium' of the Latin versions and translates 'propitiatory,'
adding on the first occasion on which it occurs, the note, 'a propitiatory,
that is a place of purchasing mercy,' where 'purchase' is used in its old
sense of 'pursue after, obtain, acquire.'
"The explanation of hILASTHRION here in the sense of 'mercy seat' is as old
as Origen (/Comm. ad Rom./ Lib. III.8), to whom it gives a handle for much
of his favourite mode of exegesis. Our Lord would then be spoken of as the
mercy-seat, just as elsewhere (e.g. John i.14) He is compared to the
Shekinah. But there is something abrupt and unsuitable in such imagery here,
'God purposed Him to be a mercy-seat' -- abrupt, as the phrase itself shows;
unsuitable, because the mercy-seat is, as it were, the source and abode of
mercy, not the mediator by whom it is obtained. Moreover, it throws the
pther imagery of the passage into confusion, e.g. EN TWi hAIMATI AUTOU.
Different applications of the same illustration indeed are very frequent in
St Paul (see on 1 Thess. ii.7 NHPIOI), but perhaps there is no parallel to
a confusion of metaphor like this. still this last argument must not be
pressed too far."
/Notes on the Epistles of St Paul/, Zondervan Reprint Classic, 1957, pp 271f.
>á3. As I recall--again most vaguely--there was a discussion somewhere
>áabout hILASTHRION in this Romans passage, and somebody or other claimed
>áthat it did not refer to Yom Kippur in any way. Was that on B-Greek,
>áand if so, was there a linguistic reason given? Perhaps someone can
>átell me how I can search the Archives to find out about whether such a
>ádiscussion ever took place.
Perhaps Jonathan Robie can unearth this for you?
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm