07_AN_Kibbe_282_286_282_286 10/07/15 12:22 Pagina 283 REQUESTING AND REJECTING: Paraite,omai IN HEB 12,18-29 283 oi` avkou,santej parh|th,santo mh. prosteqh/nai auvtoi/j lo,gon “Those who heard requested that no further word be spoken to them” (12,19) Ble,pete mh. paraith,shsqe to.n lalou/nta\ eiv ga.r evkei/noi evxe,fugon evpi. gh/j paraithsa,menoi to.n crhmati,zonta “See that you do not refuse the one who speaks; for if those who re- fused the one who warned from earth did not escape” (12,25) This proposed syntactical distinction (paraite,omai + mh, + infinitive vs. paraite,omai + accusative direct object) does not, unfortunately, match the use of this word in either koine or classical Greek literature. First, the claim that paraite,omai has two nuances (“to reject” and “to request”) vastly understates the range of meanings of this word. It can also mean “to implore” (Esth 4,8) 3, “to intercede” (e.g., Test. Levi 5.6-7) 4, “to excuse oneself” (Luke 14,18-19), “to escape” (Acts 25,11), “to dis- miss” (Josephus, Ant. 7.167), “to ask forgiveness” (3 Macc 6.27), or “to avoid” (Philo, De Vita Moses 1.83). Second, while paraite,omai does frequently indicate the “rejection” of its accusative direct object (4 Macc 11.2; 1 Tim 4,7; Heb 12,25; Josephus, Ant. 16.243; Diog. 6.10; Philo, Det. 19; Leg. 3.144;) we find plenty of examples of paraite,omai, such as those listed below, whose accusative direct object is “requested” or “interceded for” rather than “rejected”. “Now during the feast [Pilate] would release to them one prisoner — whomever they requested [o]n parh|tou/nto]” (Mk 15,6). Mordecai instructed Esther “not to consider it beneath her dignity to put on humble attire in which to intercede for the Jews [paraith,setai tou.j VIoudai,ouj] who were in danger” (Josephus, Ant. 11.225). des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Gießen 1910) 863, but does appear in Bauer’s first (1928) edition and in all subsequent Ger- man and English editions. The prominence of the distinction in exegetical scholarship is primarily due to J.M. CASEY, “Eschatology in Heb 12:14-29: An Exegetical Study” (S.T.D. Diss., Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven 1976) 324-325. Casey’s argument is taken up by W.L. LANE, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47B; Dallas, TX 1991) 462-463; P.T. O’BRIEN, The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI 2010) 480 n. 186; cf. D.M. ALLEN, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews. A Study in Narrative Re-Presentation (WUNT II/238; Tübingen 2008) 91 n. 277. 3 In this case the person being implored, rather than the content of the re- quest, is in the accusative case (eivselqou,sh| paraith,sasqai to.n basilei,a). 4 Here, those on whose behalf intercession is taking place take the accu- sative case (to. ge,noj VIsrah,l).