[B-Greek] Heb. 1.7: PNEUMATA-FLOGA
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 8 01:12:00 EST 2007
There is only one way for there to be an ambiguity in Heb 1.7. There is no ambiguity due to a difference between the Hebrew and the Greek if the author of Hebrews failed to understand the Hebrew then he must have used the LXX translation in the in the normal Greek fashion. It is only if the author did fully understand the Hebrew and its difference from the Greek yet chose to use the LXX with full knowledge of the difference. In that case we must then also posit that the author expected his readers to understand the difference as well or there would be a misunderstanding. This does not seem responsible on the author's part and I would therefore reject it.
george
gfsomsel
_________
----- Original Message ----
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 2:37:29 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Heb. 1.7: PNEUMATA-FLOGA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
>
> On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Differences between the MT and the LXX in Psalm 103/4:4
>
> hO, TOUS, KAI, TOUS
>
> not what I would call slavisly literal.
>
> Perhaps I have been reading the LXX too long but the greek doesn't
> seem either unnatural or ambiguous. There is no more ambiguity here
> than would be found in the greek poets.
>
> Elizabeth Kline
Perhaps I should not have used the word slavishly, just said very literal.
The hO POIWN is a participle corresponding to the Hebrew participle. The TOUS is pretty much
required or at least highly expected by the presence of the possessive AUTOU. The KAI is also
expected because of the two parallel statements.
My point was that the literal mode of the LXX translation at this point is the explanation for
keeping the same word order as in the Hebrew. A literal translation is still grammatically correct,
but it often loses the intended meaning and creates the opportunity for unintended interpretations,
completely foreign to the original text and context.
The ambiguity in the LXX which is carried over into Heb 1:7 is as Carl clearly pointed out which of
the two noun phrases in accusative is to be taken as first object and which as predicate. Both are
possible in Greek because of the free word order, but once a literal translation has been made into
English, those two possibilities are no longer present.
Let us look at the Greek text again:
hO POIWN TOUS AGGELOUS AUTOU PNEUMATA
KAI TOUS LEITOURGOUS AUTOU PUROS FLOGA
Compare with the literal NIV renderings:
Heb 1:7 He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.
Psalm 104:4: He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants.
The main problem with such literal renderings is that it makes it difficult for the English reader
to understand the intended meaning. The first problem is translating POIEIN as "make" when it
probably means "appoint" or "use as". The second problem in Heb 1:7 is that in English the noun
following the verb must be interpreted as the object rather than the predicate, because English does
not have the free word order that Greek has. By following the word order of the Greek in 1:7 (but
not the Hebrew in 104:4), the English translation has reduced the possible interpretations for 1:7
and in fact shut out the one I consider the correct one. Why NIV has deleted KAI from Heb 1:7 I
don't know.
The NJB is also a fairly literal translation, but they chose a different interpretation:
Heb 1:7: appointing the winds his messengers and flames of fire his servants.
Psalm 104:4: appointing the winds your messengers, flames of fire your servants.
They have tried to keep the participle. They have added "the" in front of "winds" because of English
grammar. I am not sure if it is necessary, since I am not a native speaker of English. Couldn't they
have said "using winds as his messengers"? In any case, without or without the definite article in
English, the same sense is given.
Last night I looked at the last four Danish literal, authorised versions spanning more than a
century. Way back in the 1870's Heb 1:7 was translated "About the angels it says: he uses his angels
as winds and his servants as fire-flame". I was pleasantly surprised that they used the verb "uses".
Notice also the word "as" before "winds". If they had just turned the noun phrases around, they
would have done a good job.
The latest literal version from 1992 says: About the angels it says: He makes his angels into winds
and his servants into flaming fire."
I asked an elderly couple who have been used to reading the Bible for 60 years what the Danish
version conveyed to them. Since it makes no sense as it stands, their suggestion was: He causes his
angels to move as swift as the winds, and he fills his servants with the fire of the Spirit."
This is an example of how a literal translation loses the meaning of the original text, and how
ordinary readers will try to make sense out of nonsense.
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list