Textual and Translational Studies in Hebrews 1:1-3
James M. Leonard, PhD (Cambridge)
One
of the great moments in biblical literature, and really, in all of ancient
literature, is the opening of the book of Hebrews:
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers
through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by
his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the
universe. 3 The Son is the radiance
of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things
by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down
at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven (NIV).[1]
Its power and magnificence is even greater in the Greek,
although we miss a few things in translation.
This brief analysis attempts to bring out some of the things which an
English translation might miss.
“Many times and in various ways”
Sometimes
the word order in Greek is important.
For example, a word or phrase is often advanced to the beginning of a
sentence for the sake of emphasis. This
is precisely the case in Heb 1:1. Most
translations begin the sentence with “Long ago,” while two translations begin
with “God” (NASB, NKJV). However,
neither of these two renderings reflects the important word order of the
Greek. Only the RSV reflects the fact
that the apostle emphatically advanced “many times and in various ways” (polymeros
kai polutropos) to the first position of the text.
The point
is that the apostle intends to contrast the inconsistent and incomplete manner
in which God previously spoke through the prophets with the definitive manner
in which he has now spoken by his Son.
The old way was sporadic, unpredictable, ad hoc; the apostle makes this
clear by advancing the prosaic, alliterated word pairing polymeros kai
polutropos to the very first position of the entire book.
This is
important not only rhetorically, but also theologically. On one hand, Deists believe that God rather
standoffishly created the world, wound it up like a clock, and then got out of
the way of nature and humankind. On the
other hand, first century Jews believe that God actually intervened in human
history, spoke certain words through the prophets, gave them adequate guidance
through the Hebrew Scriptures, and had been absolutely and regrettably silent
since Malachi’s last utterance in 400 BCE.
The apostle affirms the Jewish view, emphasizing the sporadic and
scattered manner in which God spoke, but he does so in order to say that now
the last days have come, and that God’s Word has been uttered finally and
definitively in the person of his Son.
No longer
was God content to speak piecemeal. The
revelation of God’s will in his Son is perfect and definitive. This is so because the Son is the heir of all
things, the agent of creation, the effulgence of God’s glory, and the exact
representation of God’s being. No doubt
the apostle loved that which was spoken by the prophets long ago at many times
and various ways, but the Son says it all.
“Our forefathers”
The apostle says that the
prophets spoke to “the fathers” (tois patrasin). The problem is that a number of translations
insert the possessive pronoun “our” to modify “the fathers,” when the Greek
does not warrant it!
without “our” with
“our”
NKJV “to the fathers” NLT
“to our ancestors”
HCSB “to the fathers” RSV
“to our fathers”
NASB “to the fathers” NIV “to our
forefathers”
ESV
“to our fathers”
At first, one would suspect that there were a text critical
question here, and to be sure, a few Greek manuscripts do include “our” (hemon).
However, such manuscripts are
paltry few, none of which would prompt any text critic to include “hemon”
into their edition of the Greek NT.
Ultimately, the translators have treated the insertion of “our” as a
translational decision, not as a textual decision. They inserted it merely as a translational
aid, not because they found hemon in the Greek text.
This
decision is somewhat disappointing exegetically. What if the apostle consciously chose not to
say “our” in deference to the few Gentiles who might have been part of his
readership? What if the apostle wanted
to distance himself and other believers from the Jewish persecutors who might
have been appealing to “our forefathers” in their on-going debates against the
Christian community? By inserting “our”
into their translations, the translators may have inadvertently skewed the
exegetical process.
The reason
why the translators inserted “our” was to make a smoother reading. After all, our minds trip over a phrase like
“God spoke to the forefathers,” and so we automatically supply the possessive
pronoun.[2] However, we should never sacrifice exegetical
accuracy and interpretational neutrality for smoother readability. The ESV is especially disappointing here, in
light of its attempt to provide a more “transparent” English translation
through which one might see back into the Greek.[3]
God Having Spoken
Many of our
English translations render the main clauses of vv. 1 and 2 as coordinate
clauses:
v. 1 God
spoke to our forefathers at many times and in various ways ….
v. 2 God
has spoken to us through his Son….
In order to make these two coordinate clauses work in
English, one needs to doctor them up a bit.
One way to do so is to graft the two clauses together with the
contrastive coordinate “but.” Thus, the
NIV reads, “In the past God spoke…at many times and in various ways, but
in these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son” (compare also RSV, NLT,
CEV, and NRSV). A second option is to
chop the two clauses into two independent sentences. Thus, HCSB reads, “God spoke…at different
times and different ways. In these last
days, He has spoken to us by [His] Son.”
In reality,
the two clauses are not coordinate clauses at all. In the Greek, the first clause is actually a
dependent clause modifying the main clause of the second verse. The first verb is not a main verb, but a
participle. Minimalistically, the
participle may be rendered as “having spoken.”
The difference between making them both coordinate clauses and making
the first clause a modifying dependent clause can be depicted in the following
sentence flow:
As
coordinate clauses
God spoke to our forefathers….
|
at many times
and
in various waysGod has spoken to us….As a dependent clause modifying the main clause
having
spoken to our forefathers
|
at many times
and
in various waysGod has spoken to us
So, syntactically, the apostle’s thrust is not to contrast
the two clauses, but to modify the main clause.
How does the participle “having
spoken” modify the main clause?
Depending upon the context, a participle can have multiple
meanings. In this case, however, the
participle is most likely intended to be either concessive or temporal:
Concessive: “Although God spoke to the
forefathers at many times and in various ways, in these last days he has spoken
to us by his Son.
Temporal: “After God spoke to the forefathers at
many times and in various ways, in these last days he has spoken to us by his
Son (cf. NASB).
Both options seem possible.
One is hard pressed to make a decision one way or the other.
“A Son”
The
translations nearly always insert “his” to modify “Son.” Thus, NIV reads, “…but in these last days he
has spoken to us by his Son… (cf. NLT, CEV, NKJV; HCSB[4],
NASB, NKJV give indication that “his” is supplied for clarity). “Son” here is anarthrous, that is to say, it
lacks the definite article “the” in the Greek.
Not surprisingly, the RSV and NRSV best reflect the exact wording of the
Greek: “…he has spoken to us by a Son.”[5]
The apostle
does not mean to suggest here that Jesus is just one of many sons. Rather, his intention is that the one
speaking to us does so as a Son. His
proclamation is significant because he holds a Son-ship status.
Because so
many translations insert “his” into the text, English-only preachers are liable
to miss the apostle’s emphasis. “His”
makes the emphasis fall upon Jesus’ relationship to God. Certainly, this is emphasized in many places
and is theologically correct. However,
in this passage the emphasis is not on Jesus’ relationship to God, but rather
his status as a son: Not by prophets
does God speak in these last days, but by a Son. Not by angels does God speak in these last
days, but by a Son.
Conclusion
The translations analyzed in this
essay achieve a relatively high degree of accuracy and linguistic
aesthetics. None of them is badly
mistaken in this passage, and they all offer a legitimate translation. I have included the complete text of this
passage from the translations analyzed in this essay, listing them from the
most formalistic to the most dynamic as reflected in their translations of Heb
1:1-3.[6]
RSV In many and various ways God spoke of old to
our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a
Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the
world. He reflects the glory of God and
bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of
power. When he made purification for
sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high….
NRSV Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many
and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by
a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the
worlds. He is the reflection of God’s
glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by
his powerful word. When he made
purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high….
NASB God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers
in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has
spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through
whom also He made the world. And He is
the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and
upholds all things by the word of His power.
When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of
the Majesty on high….
HCSB Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets
at different times and in different ways.
In these last days, He has spoken to us by [His], whom he appointed heir
of all things and through whom he made the universe. He is the radiance of His glory, the exact
expression of His nature, and He sustains all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat
down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
NKJV God, who at various times and in various ways
spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days
spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things,
through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His
glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word
of His power, when He had by Himself[7]
purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
ESV Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God
spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days, he has spoken to
us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he
created the world. He is the radiance of
the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the
universe by the word of his power. After
making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on
high….
NIV 1 In the past God
spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various
ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by
his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the
universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the
exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of
the Majesty in heaven.
NLT Long ago, God spoke many times and in many
ways to our ancestors through the prophets.
Abut now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an
inheritance, and through the Son he made the universe and everything in
it. The Son reflects God’s own glory,
and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power
of his command. After he died to cleanse
us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand
of the majestic God of heaven.
[1] I
have perused the following translations in analyzing the prologue to
Hebrews: ESV, HCSB (Holman Christian
Standard Bible), NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, and RSV. The entire text of Heb 1:1-3 for each of
these translations is found in the conclusion of this essay. Peterson’s The Message is excluded since it
is surprisingly mundane in this passage and elsewhere fails to qualify as a
legitimate translation. NKJV was
included because it usually follows the Textus Receptus and alerts the reader
of textual issues; KJV was excluded because of the inclusion of the NKJV.
[2]
This is probably what has happened in the copying process of those few mss
which add hemon to the text.
[3]
This is one of many such inconsistencies made by ESV, despite its publishers
animus against other translations which sacrifice “transparency” for
readability.
[4] An
annoyance of the NKJV, NASB, and HCSB is that all pronominal references to God
and Jesus (his, he, him) are all capitalized.
While this is consonant with widespread devotional literature, it is
contrary to standard English, historical translational practice (KJV and most
standard translations do not capitalize them), and to well established style
rules in scholarly journals as articulated by the Society of Biblical
Literature.
[5]
Once again, the ESV is guilty of false advertising in that its translation is
not very transparent.
[6]
Based on the entire Bible, the translations would normally follow this order,
from formalistic to dynamic, with those not analyzed herein listed in
parenthesis: (ASV, KJV), NKJV, RSV,
NASB, ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, (TEV=GNB, NEB, REB, JB, NJB, NCV, CEV,
Peterson). While assigning relative
degree of formalism/dynamism of the translations based upon a single passage is
difficult, I have given special consideration to 1) the word order of the
opening line; 2) the interpretational addition of the pronoun “his” to modify
“Son in verse 2; 3) the interpretational addition of the pronoun “our” to
modify “the fathers;” and 4) the phrase to hremati tes dunameos autou
(“by the word of his power” or “by his powerful word”). Thus, we may depict our translations of this
passage from most formalistic to most dynamic (recalling that only one of the
dynamic translations was analyzed):
RSV NRSV NASB HCSB NKJV ESV NIV NLT.
[7]
“By himself” represents the sole translatable textual issue of the
passage. The other translations do not
include “by Himself.” The decision is
somewhat difficult, with intrinsic probabilities weighing slightly in favor of
the shorter reading against the NKJV, since it is thought that “by himself” is
likely to have been added to clarify and strengthen the force of the middle
voice of the verb “to make” than to be accidentally omitted. The documentary evidence is difficult to
evaluate. The longer reading is only
apparently supported by the sixth century ms D (Claromantanus), convoluted as
it is with an expansionistic text. P46 (c. 200) supports the longer reading of
the NKJV, as do a few important non-Byzantine miniscules such as 1739 and 1881,
and the Syriac and Coptic versions. Most
textual critics are impressed by the support for the shorter reading by
Sinaiaticus, B, and the Western tradition.
Posts
