[B-Greek] Hebrews 1:8

robert newman rob at designceramics.co.uk
Wed Jun 30 10:40:50 EDT 2004


There has been much written about the translation of this verse. We need
to take care here not to get into a Theological discussion here. The
basic answer to the question posed is that QEOS can also be taken as
Vocative. Rolf Furuli after a short mention of this verse states "If we
could establish without doubt whether "God" was nominative or vocative,
we could also decide which of the translations is the correct one.
However, neither in Hebrews 1:8 nor in our quotation of Psalm 45:7 is
there a verb that can help us.Thus, in this passage the theology of the
translator is the decisive factor in the translation." - The Role of
Theology and Bias in Bible Translation.
 
Is he right, can it be decided grammatically whether QEOS is nominative
or vocative?
 
In discussing PROS and the correlative coordination of Heb 1:7,8 George
F Somsel writes:
 
>This is clearly stating that he is speaking to the ones mentioned, not
concerning them.
 
In view of what's already been said this doesn't seem like a good
argument. If it's that clear George why do most translator's render this
like these "but of the Son he say's" NET or "But about the Son he says"
NIV?
 
I have two questions.
 
1) Buduhn in his book Truth in Translation has a chapter on this verse.
He gives some powerful arguments, is this one sound?
 
He writes "Furthermore, there is no other example in the Bible where the
expression "Forever" stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb
"to be" as it would if the sentence were read "Your throne is forever."
"Forever" always functions as a phrase complementing either an action
verb, or a predicate noun or pronoun."
 
Is there really no other example in the Bible? And what about other
literature?
 
2) There is also an interesting textual variant here in this verse that
may give weight to the NWT rendering and others simular. Is the
Translator's New Testament right in claiming "If the reading 'his' is
adopted, then the previous line must be translated 'God is your throne
for ever and ever'"?
 
I don't think this is really a place to discuss TC as such, but here is
the reason for my question:
A note to translator's in the Translator's New Testament points out a
variant reading of the Greek text.  It says "UBS GNT has adopted 'your'.
If the reading 'his' is adopted, then the previous line must be
translated 'God is your throne for ever and ever'" 
What is the strength of the variant reading AUTOU "his"? Even though
NA27 has SOU"your", AUTOU "his" is the stronger reading.
The NWT is based on WH which has AUTOU "his" and yet they translate as
"your". This harmonizes with the LXX from which Paul was quoting. It's
reasonable to assume that Paul quoted accurately and that "your" is the
correct reading. Or is it? How/Why would AUTOU "his" be introduced? If
SOU "your" was originally penned by Paul, why did an early scribe/s
change it to AUTOU "his"?  An attempt to clarify the text as it was then
understood?  Or is it more likely that AUTOU "his" was changed to SOU
"your", so as to harmonize Paul's words with the LXX?  This is of course
conjecture, but "improving" a quotation in this way is a known scribal
practice. (It's appealed to for example in the NET Bibles textual
critical note to Heb 1:12 to establish the reading "like a garment") So
it seems there is a Textual Critical possibility in favor of the
rendering "God is your throne" as highlighted in the Translator's New
Testament.
 
So is the Translator's New Testament right in claiming "If the reading
'his' is adopted, then the previous line must be translated 'God is your
throne for ever and ever'"?
 
Whilst these questions are of interest to me, I have found a careful
consideration of the context here to be most helpful in making the
meaning of the verse clear.
 
Robert Newman
Essex England



More information about the B-Greek mailing list