[B-Greek] Hebrews 1.8

George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Fri Jul 9 19:31:49 EDT 2004


On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:24:17 -0700 Jason BeDuhn <Jason.Beduhn at NAU.EDU>
writes:
> Dear B-Greek subscribers,
> 
> I am not a member of your list.  But my name has come up in a 
> discussion of 
> Hebrews 1.8, and I wish to set the record straight on what I have 
> said about 
> this verse in my book Truth in Translation.  First of all, you 
> should know 
> that the book is about translation, not interpretation, and that all 
> of its 
> arguments are rooted in linguistic analysis of the original Greek of 
> the New 
> Testament within its literary, historical, and cultural context.  It 
> does not 
> concern itself with theological debate over interpretation.  A year 
> or so ago, 
> when someone brought up the book as a topic for discussion on this 
> list, the 
> moderators banned any such discussion, for reasons that escape me.  
> But now 
> Dr. Conrad, without benefit of actually reading my very short 
> chapter on 
> Hebrews 1.8, has objected to one sentence within that chapter that 
> was quoted 
> on this list, and offered an analysis at the conclusion of which he 
> states 
> that what I have said "will not stand as an objection to the 
> conventional 
> translation of Heb. 1.3" and that "BeDuhn's claim that the 
> conventional 
> reading of the text is grammatically invalid just won't hold 
> water."
> 
> To his credit, Dr. Conrad qualifies his conclusions by stating that 
> they apply 
> to my position "if it has been accurately cited and in sufficient 
> context."  I 
> must say that it has not.  Nor do I fault the individual who quoted 
> me, 
> because his sole purpose was to ask if the particular point I made 
> in the one 
> sentence (not my whole position and argument) was factually correct. 
>  Dr. 
> Conrad certainly did not have sufficient information on my argument 
> to 
> gratuitiously assert that I am "unaware of the existential function 
> of the 
> verb EINAI in Greek" and that I "assume that all instances of the 
> verb are 
> tive."  Nor was he in a position to assume that I consider the 
> conventional reading of Heb. 1.3 to be invalid.  In fact, I say in 
> my book, 
> "Both translations [the conventional and the one found in the NWT, 
> as well as 
> in notes to the NRSV and TEV] are possible, so none of the 
> translations we are 
> comnparing can be rejected inaccurate.  We cannot settle the debate 
> with 
> certainty" (99) and "Let me repeat that both ways of translating 
> Hebrews 1.8 
> are legitimate readings of the original Greek of the verse.  There 
> is no basis 
> for proponents of either translation to claim that the other 
> translation is 
> certainly wrong.  All that can be discussed is which translation is 
> more 
> probable" (101).  I hope that is clear.  I argue in the book that 
> "God is your 
> throne" is more probable based on the following points:
> 
> Linguistic:
> 1. preponderance of use of hO QEOS as a nominative, rather than as a 
> vocative;
> 2. lack of parallel to using EIS TON AIWNA as an absolute predicate 
> phrase; 
> preponderance of its use as modifier of other elements within the 
> predicate;
> 3. the existence of an alternative way to convey the vocative if it 
> is 
> intended.
> 
> Literary:
> 1. literary context in Hebrews fails to supply another reference to 
> Jesus as 
> "God"; functionality of the verse in its context without taking hO 
> QEOS as a 
> vocative;
> 2. literary context of original passage in Psalm 45 shows that God 
> is not 
> being addressed; rather a king is being praised by cataloguing the 
> attributes 
> of his life in the palace.
> 
> Let me add that this argument in presented in just two pages written 
> at a 
> popular level.
> 
> Dr. Conrad has gone to the trouble of carefully investigating my 
> statement 
> that "There is no other example in the Bible where the expression 
> 'forever' 
> stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb 'to be' . . .  
> 'Forever' 
> always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb, or 
> a 
> predicate noun or pronoun" (99, part of Linguistic argument 2 
> above). He cites 
> what he considers contrary examples, and this leads to his 
> conclusion that my 
> statement is in error.  It is in error only in the way I sometimes 
> let the 
> popular level at which I am writing in the book oversimplify, 
> namely, (a) I 
> use "Bible" and "New Testament" interchangeably in the book, and (b) 
> once I 
> have given an English rendering for a Greek phrase, I use the 
> English to stand 
> for the referenced Greek wording. I can see now that his needs to be 
> handled 
> more carefully in future editions of the book.  My statement, within 
> the 
> context of how the book is written (with the two practices of 
> simplification I 
> just mentioned) is correct.  None of Dr. Conrad's examples refute 
> it, and I am 
> surprised no one else on this list has noted that fact.  In none of 
> Dr. 
> Conrad's examples does the phrase EIS TON AIWNA stand alone with an 
> explicit 
> or implicit EINAI in the predicate.  Instead, his exampled involve 
> either the 
> dative of possessor which the phrase complements (in the doxological 
> formulae) 
> or the adverbial phrase MEQ' hUMWN, which again the phrase 
> complements.  Now 
> we all know how easy it is to quibble about what is or is not a true 
> parallel.
>  But all I wish to assert here is that Dr. Conrad's argument falls 
> short of 
> demonstrating a failing in mine.
> 
> On the other hand, Dr. Conrad's instincts were right, even if he did 
> not 
> succeed in supporting them sufficiently.  That is the case because 
> if we take 
> the Septuagint into account, then my statement would need to be 
> qualified.  
> Because there, in that part of the Bible that I did not take into 
> consideration in my analysis, we do find the phrase EIS TON AIWNA 
> used 
> absolutely with either explicit or implicit EINAI, namely, in Psalm 
> 80.16 
> (81.15), 103.31 (104.31), 134.13 (135.13), and repeatedly in the 
> expression 
> "his mercy (is) forever" in Psalms 99, 105, 106, 117, 135, and 137). 
>  So this 
> information would require me to speak here, as I do in connection 
> with hO 
> QEOS, of preponderance of usage rather than claiming that there are 
> no other 
> examples.  EIS TON AIWNA usually and regularly modifies some other 
> element of 
> a predicate, but it can stand alone, and so this part of my argument 
> looses 
> much of its force.  A survey of the Psalms does show, however, that 
> the 
> preferred way to make an existential statement about the subject 
> with EIS TON 
> AIWNA is with MENW (e.g., Psalms 9.8, 32.11, 88.37, 101.13, 102.9, 
> 110.3, 
> 110.10, 111.3, 111.9, 116.2).
> 
> With that, let me just repeat that there is no objective, linguistic 
> way to 
> determine which of the two possible translations of Heb. 1.8 is the 
> correct 
> one, and one's choice must always be qualified by this fact.  I have 
> made an 
> argument for preferring one translation as more probable, and even 
> with a 
> retraction of one part of it as too sweeping an assertion, that 
> argument is 
> still stronger than any with which I am familiar on behalf of the 
> other 
> possible translation.  I would be interested to hear any argument 
> that could 
> be made on linguistic and literary grounds for preferring the 
> "conventional 
> translation" to the other.
> 
> best wishes,
> Jason BeDuhn
> 
> Jason BeDuhn
> Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
> Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
> Northern Arizona University
> 
> ---

I would presume that what we are dealing with here is not some form of
"Jabberwocky" but has a meaning.  I would therefore ask, "What is the
meaning of 'God is your throne'?"  Unless this can be answered
convincingly, I cannot see how this can be accepted as a valid
translation.  The JPS Tanak in its version of the Psalm does translate it
as "divine throne", but I hardly think that was its intention as an
enthronement psalm.

george
gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list