[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