07_AN_Kibbe_282_286_282_286 10/07/15 12:22 Pagina 282 Requesting and Rejecting: Paraite,omai in Heb 12,18-29 In Heb 12,18-29, the author contrasts Israel’s experience at Sinai with that of his readers at “Mount Zion and the city of the living God — the heavenly Jerusalem” (12,22). This contrast concerns not only their re- spective locations but their responses as well: Israel is criticized for “re- fusing” (paraite,omai; 12,19.25) to heed the word of God spoken to them at the mountain, and the audience of Hebrews is warned not to follow suit (12,25). Most scholars have taken this as a clear critique of Israel’s fearful withdrawal at Mt. Sinai, though debate continues as to how that critique relates to the seemingly positive evaluation of Israel’s fear in the Penta- teuchal accounts (Exod 20,18-21; Deut 5,23-29) 1. A minority report suggests that this standard reading of Heb 12,18-29 is mistaken. The author, some conclude, uses paraite,omai in 12,19 sim- ply to describe Israel’s “request” at Sinai, whereas in 12,25 he uses paraite,omai to denounce not their fearful request for a mediator at Sinai but their subsequent rebellions in the wilderness between Sinai and Kadesh Barnea. Thus Heb 12,18-21 refers (neutrally) to the Sinai theo- phany, but Heb 12,25 refers (critically) to post-Sinai events. The basis for this interpretation is the claim that paraite,omai takes on a positive nuance (“to request”) when followed by mh, and an infinitive, but a negative meaning (“to reject” or “to refuse”) when followed by an accusative direct object 2. So in Hebrews 12 we have the following: 1 E. GRÄSSER, An die Hebräer (EKKNT 17; Zürich 1990-1997) III, 307; H.W. ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA 1989) 373; C.R. KOESTER, Hebrews. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; New York 2001) 543; F. LAUB, Hebräerbrief (SKKNT 14; Stuttgart 1988) 175; H. HEGERMANN, Die Brief an die Hebräer (THKNT 16; Berlin 1988) 257; L.T. JOHNSON, Hebrews (NTL; Louisville, KY 2006) 334. C. SPICQ, L’Épître aux Hébreux (EBib; Paris 1952) II, 404; G.W. BUCHANAN, To the Hebrews (AB; Garden City, NY 1972) 224; P.E. HUGHES, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI 1977) 556; H-F. WEISS, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen 1991) 672; O. MICHEL, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 12; Göttingen 1966) 462. 2 The distinction first appeared, as far as I can tell, in J.H. THAYER, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York 1886) 482. Thayer mistakenly cites the lexicons of G.B. WINER (1872) and A. BUTTMAN (1873), both of whom merely note that the mh, in Heb 12,19 is pleonastic (which actu- ally works against Thayer’s position) and make no distinction between paraite,omai in Heb 12,19 and 12,25. The distinction is not found in Preuschen’s original Vollständiges griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schriften BIBLICA 96.2 (2015) 282-286