From: Wes Williams (WesWilliams@usa.net)
Date: Tue Jan 06 1998 - 21:49:37 EST
mjoseph wrote:
> Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
> >If that is the case, please tell us what is the correct translation of Heb
> >1:8, and show how lexicon and/or grammar and/or syntax is decisive for this
> >translation.
>
> your response. About Heb. 1:8, without doing the exegesis (and certainly
> not reading it as would a native Koine speaker :-) it sure looks to me as
> though QEOS here is a vocative. (1) In the Hebrew of Psalm 45 the word
> ELOHIM is clearly vocative. (2) It appears to me that the LXX (from
> which the author of Hebrews is quoting) sees it as a vocative (though
> they didn't use the vocative form; on the other hand, Aquila, translating
> literally, did). (3) FF Bruce says: "The marginal alternative 'Thy
> throne is God' is quite unconvincing." I looked through Westcott's
> arguments for the alternative, and they did indeed seem forced.
> Mark Joseph
Mark and Rolf,
There is of course, much more to say on the challenges of this verse, and it has
been discussed before on b-greek. While it is true that the phrase itself can be
taken either way, there are clues in the immediate context to help us identify
the subject. I will not comment on this further since it has been discussed in
detail before. Mark, you mention that Westcott's alternative "did indeed seem
forced." I found a post in the archives where the poster cited Westcott's
comment. I respect how Westcott exegeted the comment in view of his theology.
Here is the quote for other readers to evaluate Westcott's exegesis.
The quote is found at:
http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg01205.html
<begin quote>
Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation taken from Psalm 45:6, 7. When this entire
Psalm is considered, it is evident that the king mentioned in verse 1 who has
God's blessing is a different one than God himself who does the anointing, as
shown in verse seven. However, it is mentioned in this same verse that God has
anointed this one with the oil of exultation more than his partners. If the Son
is the one addressed here as God, then who are the partners that "God, _your_
God," anointed his King-son to excel in his gladness? At Hebrews 1:9, when many
translations read "God, your God, anointed you," clearly the one addressed in
verse eight is not God, but the one who worships God and the one who is anointed
by him.
Also the context shows that the contrast between Hebrews verses 7 and 8
is not to _essential being_ but to _function_. This fact is brought out in that
Christ, and not the angels, was bestowed divine kingship, as stated in verses 8
and 9. Thus James Moffatt's translation reads at Hebrews 1:8, 9: "God is thy
throne for ever and ever, and thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity; thou
hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has
consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades."
Commenting on Hebrews 1:8, 9, B. F. Westcott wrote in his work "The
Epistle to the Hebrews," London, 1892, pp. 25, 26:
"ho thronos sou ho theos...dia touto...ho theos, ho theos sou... It is
not necessary to discuss here in detail the construction of the original words
of the Psalm. The LXX admits of two renderings: ho theos can be taken as a
vocative in both cases (_Thy throne, O God,... therefore, O God, Thy God..._) or
it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (_God is Thy
throne,_ or _Thy throne is God..._), or in apposition to ho theos sou in the
second case (_Therefore God, even Thy God..._). The only important variation
noted in the other Greek versions is that of Aquila, who gave the vocative thee
in the first clause (Hieron. _Ep._ lxv. _ad Princ._ 13) and, as it appears,
also in the second (Field, _Hexapla ad loc._). It is scarcely possible that
'elohim in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore
is against the belief that ho theos is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole
it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: _God is Thy throne_
(or, _Thy throne is God_), that is, 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the
immovable Rock'; and to take ho theos as in apposition in the second clause.
"The phrase 'God is Thy throne' is not indeed found elsewhere, but it is
in no way more strange than Psalm lxxi. 3 _[Lord] be Thou to me a rock of
habitation...Thou art my rock and my fortress._ Is xxvi. 4 (R.V.) _In the LORD
JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock._ Ps xc. 1 _Lord, Thou hast been our
dwelling-place._ Ps xci. 1 _He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most
High..._ v. 2 _I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress,_ v. 9;
Deut. xxxiii. 27 _The eternal God is thy dwelling-place._ Comp. Is. xxii. 23.
"For the general thought compare Zech. xii. 8. This interpretation is
required if we adopt the reading autou for sou.
"It is commonly supposed that the force of the quotation lies in the
divine title (ho theos) which, as it is held, is applied to the Son. It seems
however from the whole form of the argument to lie rather in the description
which is given of the Son's office and endowment. The angels are subject to
constant change, He has a dominion for ever and ever; they work through material
powers, He--the Incarnate Son--fulfils a moral sovereignty and is crown with
unique joy. Nor could the reader forget the later teaching of the Psalm on the
Royal Bride and the Royal Race. In whatever way then ho theos be taken, the
quotation establishes the conclusion which the writer whishes to draw as to the
essential difference of the Son and the angels. Indeed it might appear to many
that the direct application of the divine Name [actually divine title] to the
Son would obscure the thought."
<end quote>
Sincerely,
Wes Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:47 EDT