[B-Greek] Hebrews 9:2-5

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Nov 7 03:52:58 EST 2007


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zionlcms" <zionlcms at qconline.com>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 6. november 2007 20:27
Subject: [B-Greek] Hebrews 9:2-5


> In Hebrews 9: 2-5 is there a way to know for sure what the referent is for
> the prepositional phrase EN hH STAMNOS . (in v. 4)? The closest feminine
> noun is KIBWTON, so most translations take that as the referent, leading to
> the understanding that the jar of manna was "in the ark" rather than "in the
> Holy of Holies."

Well, it is hard to be sure, but Ellingworth in his commentary on Hebrews says:
"The antecedent of EN hHi must be KIBWTON, rather than SKHNH in v. 3. Not only is SKHNH more 
distant, but there is no doubt that the stone tablets were in the ark, and it would make no sense in 
v. 5 to say that the cherubim were "over the Holy of Holies"; the antecedent in both cases must be 
the ark."

>
> I think I understand why so many translations take EN hH STAMNOS CRUSH . as
> referring to THN KIBWTON THS DIAQHKHS, since that is the closest feminine
> noun in the context. But the author of Hebrews often uses word order that is
> quite different from what we have to use in English.

No, it is not word distance alone, but the whole context.

> 4. CRUSSOUN ECOUSA QUMIATHRION
> KAI THN KIBWTON THS DIAQHKHS
> PERIKEKALUMMENHN PANTOQEN CRUSIWi
> EN hHi STAMNOS CRUSH
> ECOUSA TO MANNA KAI hH hRABDOS AARWN hH BLASTHSASA KAI AI PLAKES THS DIAQHKHS.
> 5. hUPERANW DE AUTHS CEROUBIN DOXHS

The three items: jar of manna, staff of Aaron, and tablets of the covenant are coordinated and 
therefore either all of them or none of them are in the ark. Since no one disputes that the two 
tablets were in the ark, it is reasonable to understand the author as saying that all three were in 
the ark.
This is further supported by the reference in v. 5 to what is above the ark rather than inside it.

>
> What led me to question the usual translations is that Exodus 16:34 does not
> say that the jar of manna was "in the ark" but only "in front of the
> testimony" ENANTION TOU MARTURIOU (which agrees with the Hebrew),

But "the testimony" primarily refers to the two stone tablets of the covenant, and secondarily by 
metonymy to the ark itself and sometimes to the tent which had the ark which had the tablets. That 
the jar was put in front of the testimony then means that it was placed inside the ark in front of 
(or by) the stone tablets.
I am aware that some Rabbinic traditions place the jar outside the ark, but that is a questionable 
interpretation of or elaboration on the Hebrew text.

> 1 Kings 8:9 states that there was nothing "in the ark" (EN THi KIBWTWi) except
> the two tablets, with no mention of a jar of manna.

But this was after the ark was returned from the Philistines. No wonder if they had taken the golden 
jar and left only two stone tablets of no value to them. In any case, 1 Kings 8:9 does not tell us 
what was originally put in the ark, only what was left in it.

> What am I missing that leads many expositors to a different conclusion?

I wonder if you are following Rabbinic tradition and therefore want to avoid the straightforward 
meaning of the text?

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list