[B-Greek] Heb. 1.7: PNEUMATA-FLOGA
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Feb 7 12:38:05 EST 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl W. Conrad" cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
<snip>
> In an off-list message from Iver (the same to which Elizabeth refers above), he tells us there's
> an inconsistency between the way several different English versions convey respectively Heb 1:7
> and the Psalms 104:4, the text cited by Heb 1:7:
> NIV: He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.
> NIV: He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants.
>
> TEV: God makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.
> TEV: You use the winds as your messengers and flashes of lightning as your servants.
>
> NLT: messengers swift as the wind, and servants made of flaming fire.
> NLT: The winds are your messengers; flames of fire are your servants.
>
> CEV: I change my angels into wind and my servants into flaming fire.
> CEV: The winds are your messengers, and flames of fire are your servants.
>
> NJB: appointing the winds his messengers and flames of fire his servants.
> NJB: appointing the winds your messengers, flames of fire your servants.
>
> Iver's judgment -- I won't cite his lengthy reasoning here -- is that only NJB has the meaning
> right: that "winds" and "flames of fire" are the direct objects of "appointing" and that "his
> messengers" and "his servants" are the predicate accusatives used with "appointing."
>
> It seems to me, however, that there is something very ironic -- or awkward (whatever one chooses
> to call it) -- in that -- presumably -- all these English versions are Englishing respectively
> the GREEK GNT of Heb 1:7 and the HEBREW MT of Psalm 104.4 -- but are they? Or are they
> endeavoring to derive a meaning by comparison of the Greek LXX of Psalm 104:4 and the Hebrew MT
> of the same text -- and are they Englishing the Greek GNT of Heb 1:7 in terms of what the Greek
> text of the GNT says or in terms of how they understand one or the other or both of the texts of
> Psalm 104:4?
>
> The LXX text of Psalm 104:4 and the GNT text of Heb 1:7 alike read:
>
>> HEB. 1:7 KAI PROS MEN TOUS AGGELOUS LEGEI:
>> hO POIWN TOUS AGGELOUS AUTOU PNEUMATA
>> KAI TOUS LEITOURGOUS AUTOU PUROS FLOGA
>
> I agree with Iver that the proper sense of POIWN here is "appointing" -- that's a standard usage
> of Greek POIW. I personally think that the "natural" way of understanding the configuration of
> POIWN with TOUS AGGELOUS/TOUS LEITOURGOUS and PNEUMATA/PUROS FLOGA is that the former words are
> direct objects and the latter words are predicate nouns -- and I think that this "natural" way of
> understanding the configuration accounts for the phrasing of these "standard" English versions
> (at least, insofar as they are based upon the LXX Greek or GNT Greek rather than on the MT Hebrew
> (BHS).
>
> But Iver has raised (in his off-list message) another question: how and why did the LXX
> translators convey the MT Hebrew into the Greek that we find in our LXX texts? He didn't quite
> raise this question, but I think it's worth raising: did the LXX translator(s) convey the Hebrew
> text (assuming that the MT has it correctly) accurately into Greek or not. And I would raise a
> further question here: did the author of Hebrews understand the text of Psalm 104:4 as cited in
> Heb 1:7 in accordance with his understanding of the LXX text or (but we can't really know, can
> we?) in accordance with his understanding of the Hebrew text of Psalm 104:4?
Just a couple of comments in response to Carl's questions.
I would agree that the "natural" way of understanding the grammar of the Greek text which is
identical in Psalms 103(4):4 and Heb 1:7 is to take the first noun phrase as object for the verb and
the second noun phrase as predicate. However, the translator of Psalms 103/4 was slavishly literal,
keeping the word order of the Hebrew text, and thereby he seems to have produced a somewhat
unnatural and ambiguous Greek sentence. Therefore, I would put very little significance on the Greek
word order, and appeal to the context to understand the text. I doubt that the author of Hebrews was
familiar with Hebrew, but he must have been familiar with the peculiar variety of translation Greek
one often finds in the LXX. When you read a text in an unnatural translation, you tend to rely more
on context and your background knowledge for the interpretation than on fluid things like Greek word
order.
Harold seems to suggest that the standard translation of the MT is wrong, but I prefer to accept the
way Psalm 104:4 is normally translated into English. In simple English, I prefer TEV's rendering
that God *uses* (or employs) winds as his messengers and lightning(s) as his servants. Several times
in the OT when God was fighting for his chosen people, he attacked their enemies through the forces
of nature like winds, storm, rain, hail and lightning.
It is with this background in mind that I suggest that the author of Hebrews understood the Greek
text of Psalm 103:4 in the same way as modern translators have understood the Hebrew of Psalm 104:4,
even though the Greek is somewhat unnatural.
In the context of Hebrews 1, the theme is to pull down the status of the angels from beings up there
with God in Heaven that some Jews were tempted to worship to beings that are simply God's messengers
and servants on this earth. As servants they are at the same level as winds and lightning that God
also uses as his servants and messengers, even though inanimate. No Jew would worship winds and
lightning, so neither should they worship the angels. But the angels should worship the Son (Heb
1:6). The angels should not be considered to be at the same level as Jesus. Unfortunately for the
translator, English uses different words for "angel" and "messenger" whereas Hebrew and Greek do
not, and the author of Hebrews plays on the double sense of AGGELOS.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list