CX

I'm not really prepared or inclined to get into a discussion of the theological significance of the new covenant in Hebrews. My primary interest was in the Greek usage of the word "new". As such I'll address that part of your argument. Perhaps someone else can respond to the discussion of Hebrews


My "typo" follows the BGreek transliteration scheme wherein, as you rightly point out, Theta is represented by the letter Q. Unfortunately we don't have the capacity for greek fonts here and it takes too long to do it using image files.

That being said, your analysis is still faulty. I don't currently have access to either the Large or "little" Kittel. In any event I find the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (and the smaller LS Intermediate G-E Lexicon) more useful as it includes not just biblical greek, but nearly every dialect of Greek from the classical period onward. Furthermore it is not pregnant with the theological bias of an NT greek lexicon.

That being said there are perhaps 4 words in KOINH Greek which are commonly translated as new: NEOS, PROSFATOS, AGNAFOS, and KAINOS. Your argument about NEOS is not only inaccurate, but completely irrelevant. NEOS usually means new in the sense of newly born, youthful. Sometimes NEOS can mean new in the usual sense (in fact, upon rechecking, the author of Hebrews uses the word in connection to the covenant in the phrase DIAQHKH NEAN). KAINOS, as I already mentioned, means new as in newly invented, novel. In classical Greek it could mean "anew" or "afresh", but by the time of the KOINH period there is no indication that this usage was common. Thayer's & Smith's Bible Dictionary says:

Furthermore KOINH and other attic and ionic dialects of Greek going back to the classical period have a perfectly good word for "renew", ANAKAINIZO (which the astute reader will notice derives from KAINOS). In fact, the NT uses the word ANAKAINIZO or some derivative 5 times elsewhere in the NT. Actually, now that I think about it, the author of Hebrews uses ANAKAINIZO in chapter 6 not in connection to the covenant.

Both these points make it clear the neither NEOS nor KAINOS can reasonably be taken to mean "renew", which was my original point. Now that I think about it I'm not sure why you brought NEOS up to begin with.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Xman

On Hebrew and Greek, New and Renew:

First, some general comments on langauge. As I'm sure we will all admit, all words have semantic ranges. Some meanings are more common than others. But very few words, if any, mean one and only one thing. Moreover, some words are synonymous with others, having overlapping or even nearly identical semantic ranges. That one word carries a particular meaning in one context does not mean that it cannot carry another meaning in another context, or that two words cannot carry the same meaning in any given context. And most fundamentally, for any particular appearance of a word, meaning is determined by its use in the particular context.

Regarding chadash[ah]/chadei[a]sh, they are cognates (we'll leave debates about proper pointing out, as they are irrelevant to the issue at hand, though for anyone else who wants to look them up, lexicons vary in their pointing of both these words). The Bible commonly uses the verbal form to mean "renew" or "repair." The adjectival form, which carries the same fundamental semantic conception, is generally translated "new," but not with the implication of excluding the idea of "renewed" (which is not just a verb but, in the context of Hebrews 8 // Jeremiah 31, an adjective). As was pointed out, Jeremiah was referring to a restoration or reestablishment of the Davidic kingdom, not the creation of a different one. Perhaps one reason many translations favor "new" over "renewed" is that in English we commonly use the word "new" to mean "renewed."

Regarding the Greek, I brought up neos simply to point out that the TDNT finds a different nuance emphasized in neos than in kainos, and that the more common nuance of kainos is quite conducive to the meaning "renewed." I included the part about neos in the quote specifically so that the "whereas ..." phrase would be give some context. I am not trying to argue that neos is the word for "new" and that kainos is the word for renew. I am, rather, pointing out that the meaning of kainos is broader than "brand new," as is the meaning of neos for that matter (consider that in Col. 3:10 neos is the adjectival parallel to anakainoo!). Anakainizo[anakainoo] is an inappropriate word for the context of Hebrews 8, as that context requires an adjective rather than a verb. Elsewhere, kainos can also be seen to have the flavor of "renewed," such as in Revelation 21:5 where we find the phrase "I am making everything new." In this context, "everything" is being "made new." It is not impossible to think that this means "I am replacing everything with new things," but the more natural and intuitive reading, I think, is that it means "I am renewing everything that exists." In the case of Hebrews 8, Jeremiah 31 ought also to be a major influence on how we understand its meaning. Since the concept spoken of in Jeremiah 31 is one of renewal, that ought to be the concept we think of in Hebrews 8 as well.

Regarding the trustworthiness of TDNT, it is not as theologically biased as you suggest. In fact, its articles were primarily written by liberals who didn't have much investment in maintaining traditional theology. Further, its articles generally attempt to cover all known uses of a given word, such as in classical, rabbinic, koine and NT contexts. Often they even distinguish between different nuances employed by different writers. The "NT" in the title represents not a Christian viewpoint, but a restriction of the content of the dictionary to those words which appear in the NT. As such it devotes far greater space to each entry than does a lexicon (even such a fine one as the "big Liddell"), and provides far more examples of historical uses from all time periods. Thayer, in turn, is generally regarded as untrustworthy, its scholarship being outdated before it was first published.

Apikorus

Jeremiah does not use the verbal form chadeish. In Jer 31:31, the expression berit chadashah means a "new" covenant, and not a "restored" one. This is clear in context if one continues reading (my translation):

The Hebrew lo kaberit asher karti et-avotam = "not like (according to) the covenant which I made with their fathers" provides further support for the interpretation of "newness". It is a covenant with a different people. Jeremiah indeed distinguishes the new covenant from the old: ki zot ha berit asher ekhrot et-bayit yisrael acharei hayamim haheim = "for this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days" (Jer 31:33).

It is a new covenant which is inscribed not on tablets but on their very hearts (v'al libam ekhtevenah).
This is more than a mere renewal of a preexisting covenant. (Note, though, that Deut 6:6 also speaks of YHWH's commandments being "upon your heart". This is classic Deuteronomic language.)

There are only ten instances of the verb chadeish in the Hebrew Bible. (Since you are fond of lexicons, you can check this yourself: the word is Strong's 02318.) In each case the connotation is of renewal/restoration, and not formation de novo (for which the Hebrew ברה is used). These are:

• 1 Sam 11:14 : reestablishment of the kingdom at Gilgal
• 2 Chr 15:8 : renewal of the altar
• 2 Chr 24:4 : repair of the Temple
• 2 Chr 24:12 : repair of the Temple
• Psa 51:10 : restore David's righteous spirit
• Psa 103:5 : renew David's youth
• Psa 104:30 : renew (?) the face of the earth
• Job 10:17 : renewal (i.e. repeated introduction of) of hostile witnesses
• Isa 61:4 : repair/restore the waste cities
• Lam 5:21 : renew our days as in olden times

By the same token, you'll have a hard time finding any examples where chadash(ah) means anything but "new" (Strong's 02319 - 53 instances). Maybe Lam 3:23?

Your point about "new" in English is well-taken. Idiomatic expressions such as "I'm a new man" often connote renewal or restoration. Again, one shouldn't put too fine a point on the distinction between the verbal chadeish and the adjectival chadash(ah). However, for the reasons I stated earlier (and which you have not addressed) I think the author of Jer 31 (which may be a later addition to Jeremiah) wanted to connote "newness" more than "renewal".

Incidentally, Xman, ? אתה יודע לקרו עברית

Of course I also insist that the berit chadashah in Jer 31:31 had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth and events 600 years in Jeremiah's future. (Nor does Daniel 9 have anything to do with events in the 1st century CE, 200 years after it was written. Dan 9 is of Hasmonean provenance.) By appropriating the expression, Christian tradents sought to retroject Jesus into the Hebrew Bible. But the focus in Jer 31 etc. is square on the nation of Israel - the (putative) biological descendants of Abraham.

The author of Jer 33 has no conception of any eschatological sacrifice, which is what Jesus represents within Christianity. He also goes on to say that the Davidic kingship and the Levitical priesthood are as fixed as the celestial order, thereby recognizing the essential dyarchic nature of YHWH's ruling proxy. Christian tradition applies both these signifiers (as well as many others from the Hebrew Bible) to Jesus. The result is novel, but rather incoherent from the point of view of the Hebrew Bible itself. It certainly doesn't seem to be what Jeremiah had in mind.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>