[B-Greek] Heb. 1.7: PNEUMATA-FLOGA

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 7 12:28:18 EST 2007


If the author of Hebrews was, in fact, not familiar with Hebrew as Iver suggests, then, of course, the understanding of Heb 1.7 doesn't necessarily depend upon what may have been the meaning of the MT.  It may rather have depended upon what may have seemed to the author to be the natural understanding of the Greek text which he had before him since he was quite obviously acqainted with Greek.  It is not unusual for the NT to use the OT in ways which are quite unlike their original intention.  This brings us right back to Carl's statement regarding the natural way to understand the passage as Greek.

 
george
gfsomsel
_________



----- Original Message ----
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: B-Greek B-Greek <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:38:05 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Heb. 1.7: PNEUMATA-FLOGA


----- 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

---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!  
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/


More information about the B-Greek mailing list