Hebrews 1:8 From the Greek
- Thread starter ByGraceThroughFaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I would translate it the way the translators translate it: But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.
Heb 1.8 προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα
That is, about the son your throne God lasts forever.
The part you are quoting leaves out the "lasts forever" part, and is apparently focusing on the fact Jesus, the "Son," is establishing his Deity and his Kingdom, or reign.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
That's the Christianized version of Psalm 45:6/7; there's others.
"Your throne is from God, it is forever and ever" (Stone Tanach)
"Your throne, O judge, [will exist] forever and ever" (Chabad.org)
_
That's the Christianized version of Psalm 45:6/7; there's others.
"Your throne is from God, it is forever and ever" (Stone Tanach)
"Your throne, O judge, [will exist] forever and ever" (Chabad.org)
_
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Psalm 45:6-7 (NET): Your throne, O God, is permanent.
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of justice.
Why does the Stone Tanach translate it as "from God"?
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of justice.
Why does the Stone Tanach translate it as "from God"?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I'd be careful with your accusations. A translation is not something "Christianized." It is a translation from one language to another. As far as I can see, Psalm 45.6 is saying the same thing, that God's Kingdom is going to last forever. The author of Hebrews is a Christian yes, but he understands, as a Jew, how it reads in the Hebrew. And the Septuagint does not, I think, contradict that.
If it is God's throne that lasts, then application of that to the Son in the same way is not contradictory when it is true that the Son of God is, in fact, God.
the original is in Psalm 45:6-7
It is very interesting, that the earlier Jewish works, "The Targum regards the words as addressed to Jehovah, ‘The throne of Thy majesty, O Jehovah, abideth for ever and ever.’" (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
The Hebrew scholar, Aquila, who published a Greek Version of the Old Testament, in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., translates the Hebrew, by the Greek, “ο θρονος σου θεε”, which is undoubtedly the vocative, “Your throne, O God”. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163). It is clear, that as early as the 2nd century, the Hebrew was understood as the vocative, and not the nominative.
In verse 9, the words, “ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου”, is also in the vocative, and should read: “O God, your God”. This is how it was understood in the Greek Old Testament by Symmachus, published in the latter half of the 2nd century. (see, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). In this verse also Aquila uses the vocative, θεέ. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163)
In the The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, there is this comment
"This may also be translated "Your throne, 0 God ('"elohim"), is everlasting" (so LXX), where the king is referred to as God" (Jewish Publication Society TANAKH translation copyright© 1985, 1999, by the Jewish Publication Society, page, 1332)
Clearly it is understood by these Hebrew scholars, as it was by Aquila and Symmachus, that the words are an address, by the Father to Jesus Christ, which can only read, "Your Throne O God...therefore O God, Your God".
This also shows that in the 2nd century AD, the Jews who rejected the Trinity and Deity of Jesus Christ, actually admit in their Versions of the Greek OT, that there is more than one Person Who is GOD.
A New English Translation of the Septuagint, which is prulished by Oxford, and not, as far as I am aware, by Evangelical Christian editors, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, read, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A rod of equity is of your rule" (page 569)
The New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, reads: “but of the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”.Another Unitarian, Dr George Winer, also admits that in Hebrews 1:8, the vocative is to be understood. “The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking the place of the vocative…H. i.8” (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.227)
Evidence that is beyond any doubt to the honest mind, that Paul writes "Your Throne O God...therefore O God, Your God", where it is the vocative in direct address by God the Father to God the Son!
Last edited:
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
Post No.3 isn't an indictment. It simply reports the existence of two non
Christian translations of Psalm 45:6/7
I think you might be surprised at the amount of bias that goes into English
translations of the ancient languages; especially when linguists encounter
ambiguity. Caveat Lector.
Neither the letter to Hebrews, nor the 45th Psalm, were originally penned in
English.
The LXX itself is a translation; which raises questions about reliability related
to translating from Hebrew to Greek, and then translating from the Greek
translation to an English translation. Caveat Lector +
_
Post No.3 isn't an indictment. It simply reports the existence of two non
Christian translations of Psalm 45:6/7
I think you might be surprised at the amount of bias that goes into English
translations of the ancient languages; especially when linguists encounter
ambiguity. Caveat Lector.
Neither the letter to Hebrews, nor the 45th Psalm, were originally penned in
English.
The LXX itself is a translation; which raises questions about reliability related
to translating from Hebrew to Greek, and then translating from the Greek
translation to an English translation. Caveat Lector +
_
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
As Christians we can look back and understand that "your God" would include Christ along with all of Israel who viewed the Lord as their God. I can't see any distinction by which it can be said this specifically refers to Christ. We simply know now that it does. Whose God? The God of both Israel and Christ. The Kingdom would be evoked by both Israel and Christ because we now know it is Christ's Kingdom, and we also know that Israel will be inheriting this Kingdom in the future, just as they temporarily had it in the past. Only the Kingdom to come will be everlasting.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I do either. I'm guessing....
To say "God, your God" seems to indicate that God has a God, if looked at in a particular way. I think it is saying, "God, that is, the God that belongs to Israel."
In other words, for me it is describing who God is, and not saying that there are two Gods, one Christ and the other the Father.
There is another passage similar to this that does seem to indicate that the Messiah, being God, still calls upon God as his Father.
Psalm 110.1 The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
Last edited:
let me help you
no one would translate "Ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ κύριος", in English as "the Lord is Your throne", but "Your throne O Lord". So, why, expect for theological purposes, is "Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς" translated by some, as "God is Your throne"?
The same can be said for John 1:1, where the likes of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians, translate "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", as "and the Word was a god", or "the Word was divine". But, had John written, "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ κύριος", again, there would be no argument in the English reading, "and the Word as Lord", and there would be no "a lord", etc.
I am showing, that it is theological purposes, and not because of sound Bible study, that we have their suggested readings when it comes to the Person of Jesus Christ, expecially, to His Deity.
Dr Geroge Winer, the Greek scholar, who was a Unitarian, said of Titus 2:13, "τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ", that according to the Greek grammar, Paul here calls Jesus Christ, "our Great God and Saviour", referring to One Person. However, theologically, he could not accept Paul calling Jesus Christ, "Great God", and therefore makes the words refer to Two Persons, the Father and Jesus Christ.
I can see that the person who wrote this article, does not understand Greek grammar, so it is quite useless
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I was commenting on the need to separate the idea of Christian bias in translation work. The verse mentioned is not "Christian," but can always be viewed through a Christian lens...properly so.
No, I'm not surprised. But translation work is pretty good at leaving out the bias, in my view. The occasional injection of "Christian corruption" is usually removed when compared with other manuscripts. It is *interpretation* that is biased, and not so much *translation,* unless you're talking about one of the Christian cults. They may actually change the translation to conform with their beliefs.
You think? ;)
We know this. Jesus and the NT, however, quoted from the Septuagint.
read #8 and you will see what the early Jews, and some deniers of the Deity of Jesus Christ, actually did understand Psalm and Hebrew to mean
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
Which version did he quote? The original LXX or an English translation of
a hand-made copy of the original LXX?
_
Which version did he quote? The original LXX or an English translation of
a hand-made copy of the original LXX?
_
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Jesus most certainly didn't quote from an English translation! ;)
Are there different versions of the Septuagint? - Answers
neither Jesus Christ, or any of the New Testament Writers quote from the LXX. They did however use a Hebrew Bible that in many places is close to what the LXX reads. Mark 4:12, for example, is not a LXX quote, nor from a Hebrew text that we have, but from a Version that is closer to the Jewish Aramaic, Targum, as is Mark 15:34, etc.
The LXX is a translation from the Hebrew, and therefore not "Inspired" by the Holy Spirit, it is impossible that the Lord Himself would have used a human translation, that has errors, as His OT Bible. The same is true of the NT Writers.
Similar threads
