Three difficult passages from Hebrews

As a person who has worked as a translator, I can attest that surmounting cultural, linguistic, and stylistic peculiarities are a major challenge when attempting to grasp an ancient author's message.  Even when one is capable of studying an ancient text in its original language, these factors constitute barriers between a modern reader's understanding and an ancient author's intended meaning.  This problem is compounded when a reader is not capable of reading the original author's language.  In such a case, the reader is dependent on the capabilities of a translator, who always brings his own biases, presuppositions, and expectations to the task of translation.  Regardless of a particular translator's skill, he inevitably will be confronted by a text that is ambiguous or just does not make sense to him.  If the translator is dealing with an onstracon that nobody else has ever seen, he can write a learned article with conjectures about problematic phrases or words.  However, if he is translating a book from the bible, which has been translated literally thousands of times over the past 2000 years, this is not an option unless he is writing a commentary.  He is constrained to produce flowing text with at most a short footnote for a problematic passage.   The average reader may be confused by such a passage but is limited to the translator's considered opinion.  If the translator has misunderstood the original author's intent due to a textual, grammatical, or structural problem, then a third party reader will have even greater difficulty in understanding the intended message of the book.  All of my previous posts have addressed translation or interpretive problems I have encountered over the past 40 years.  The book of Hebrews has more than its share of such problems, but I will limit this post to three passages that I have found to be mistranslated in every modern translation I have ever examined: Heb 2:2, 4:13, and 5:11.

Hebrews 2:2, 2:3

ει γαρ ο δι αγγελων λαληθείς λογος εγενετο βεβαιος, και πασα παράβασις και παρακοη ελαβεν ενδικον μισθαποδοσιαν πως ημεις εκφευξομεθα τηλικαυτης αμελησαντες σωτηριας;

For if the message received through angels was certain, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

For a period of 20 years every time I read this passage in either Greek or English, I always responded 'What angels?'  From Exodus to Deuteronomy the only angel ever mentioned is  the Angel of YHWH – hwhy 9alm.  I asked numerous Christian leaders that I respected about this, and the most common response was: There is a Jewish tradition that angels were the mediators of the Torah.  Well, not that I know of, and there is nothing in any part of the Hebrew bible to justify this view.  Though I am no expert in the Talmud after 20 years of searching I had never found anything to substantiate this view.

Now from a linguistic basis, the Hebrew term 9alm and the Koine Greek term αγγελος mean exactly the same thing – messenger – and the same term is used for a human messenger or for a supernatural spirit messenger.  In Numbers 22 the Angel of YHWH is juxtaposed with the messengers of Balak in the same context, and only context distinguishes one from the other.  Interestingly, by the time the Vulgate was produced the term angelus had come to be a reference only to spirit beings, and the idea of a human messenger had been completely lost.  As a result, modern translators render the Greek and Hebrew terms by messenger when they think the text is referring to a human and by angel when they think it is referring to a spirit being.   Ordinary readers are captives of the translator's point of view, right or wrong.

If the common answer is wrong, what is correct?  My answer is this: Open any concordance and look for the phrase, "And YHWH spoke to Moses saying, 'Speak to…'"  You will find literally hundreds of instances.  In Ex 20:19 the people spoke to Moses and said, "You speak to us and we will listen, but do not let God speak to us again lest we die."  From that point to the end of his life Moses was almost exclusively the direct intermediary between YHWH and the people.  There are a few times that God addressed Aaron directly, but those did not include any public dictates.  The overall pattern was this: God spoke to Moses, and Moses conveyed the message to Aaron, Arron's remaining two sons, and the other principal leaders, and they communicated with the rest of the people.  This identifies the messengers associated with the Covenant made at Sinai.  To be fair, I must say this: I came to this view about 20 years ago, and I have found very few scholars who agree with me.

What is the point in Hebrews 2:2?  The Sinai covenant originated with YHWH as fulfillment of his promise to Abraham.  God had spoken directly to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but out of fear the people at Sinai had rejected so direct an interaction with God.  The leaders had seen YHWH from a distance, but Moses spoke with YHWH mouth to mouth.  As a result, the Sinai covenant was established with the people of Israel through the agency of a mortal human messenger, Moses.  Transgression of the provisions of this covenant carried penalties up to and including sudden death.  If that be the case, how much greater would be the severity of neglecting the covenant established by the eternal Son of God?  This is a typical argument from the lesser to the greater (a fortiori).

Hebrews 4:13, 4:14

ζων γαρ o λογος  του θεου και ενεργης, και τομωτερος υπερ πασαν μαχαιραν διστομον και διικνουμενος αχρι μερισμου ψυχης τε και πνευματος, αρμων τε  και μυελων, και κριτικος ενθυμησεων και εννοιων καρδιας:  και ουκ εστι κτισις αφανης ενωπιον αυτου, παντα δε γυμνα και τετραχηλισμενα τοις οφθαλμοις αυτου, προς  ον ημιν o λογος.

For the word of God is living, active, and sharper than any two-edged sword; dividing apart soul and spirit, joint and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  Nothing created is hidden before him, but everything is naked and laid open to his eyes προς  ον ημιν o λογος.   

Everything up to the last clause is relatively straight forward, and most translations generally agree with one another, but this is not so for the last clause.  A brief survey of translations comes up with the following variety for the final clause:

·         NASB - …'with whom we have to do.'

·         NIV and others - … 'to whom we must give account.'

·         Delitzsch - … to the eyes 'of the master of our message.'    בעל דברים שלנו

·         Modern Hebrew - …'he before whom we must give account.'  מי שלפניו עלינו לתת דין וחשבון

These are modern attempts to render the Greek text, but none of them even approximate the meaning of the Greek words that are present.  Grammatically, the words προς  ον ημιν o λογος constitute a verbless clause – that is, the clause does not include any verb form.  This is not a problem for Koine Greek, Latin, or any Semitic language, but it is a major problem for any modern European language.  (Note that the Vulgate ad quem nobis sermo is a word-for-word, form-for-form rendering of the Greek text.)  A translator would need to convert these words into a normal verbal clause to be sensible for modern readers.  The grammatical structure of the clause as it stands is as follows:

·       προς  ον  is a prepositional phrase with an accusative object that would have the general meaning concerning whom.  The antecedent is God before whom all things are naked and laid bare.

·         ημιν is a first person plural dative pronoun that could mean to us, for us, or against us.

·    o λογος is the subject of the clause.  Its literal meaning is the word, but it signifies a complete message.

My objection to the common translations is that they completely alter the syntactic relations within the clause.  Now, this is possible for an idiom, and every living language develops idioms.  An idiom is a string of words whose conveyed meaning differs from the combined literal meanings of the words that make it up.  There are two problems with this approach here: 1) There is no objective evidence that this combination of words ever constituted an idiom; 2) There is no consensus among translators as to what this "idiom" meant.  My suggested rendering is as follows: Nothing created is hidden before him, but everything is naked and laid open to his eyes concerning whom the message has come for us.  This is not a very smooth translation, and it probably might be adjusted a bit; but I do think it catches the author's intended meaning.

What difference does it make?  The passage in question is one of several forceful warnings that appear in the book.  It follows immediately after a quotation from Ps 95:7-11: Today if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts as they did at Maribah.  This is the message, and it is presented before us for our benefit.  Take heed.  This force is completely missed by the standard translations.

Hebrews 5:11

περι ου πολυς ημιν o λογος και δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν, επει νωθροι γεγονατε ταις ακοαις.

The first clause is identical in structure to that of the last clause in 4:13.  The most common modern translation is 'Concerning whom (i.e., Melchizedek) we have much to say…'  (Close variations of this rendering occur in essentially all English translations, the Segond French translation, and the Hebrew translations.)  This translation fits the context well, but it has no connection with the Greek words and forms that are actually present in the text.  In addition, direct references to Melchizedek are restricted to 8 verses out of 303 in the book, and the author's extended coverage of the topic may include some 20 verses at most.  Consequently, he really did not have much to say about Melchizedek himself, but he did have a great deal to say about Yeshua's role as a new type of high priest patterned after that of Melchizedek.

From a grammatical standpoint, o λογος is the subject of the clause, πολυς is a nominative predicate adjective, and ημιν is a dative plural here meaning either 'to us' or 'for us.'  The adjective can mean much, many, or great, and it may be used with respect to number, degree, value, space, or time.  If we retain the grammatical relations that are present in the Greek text, then we obtain the following translation: Concerning whom the message is great (in significance) to us…  (It is worth noting that the Vulgate rendering de quo nobis grandis sermo… is again a word-for-word, form-for-form equivalent to the Greek text.)  That is, Melchizedek becomes a significant figure to us because his priesthood as described in Genesis serves as a typical paradigm for the priesthood of Yeshua.  It is also worth noting that Melchizedek is mentioned just twice in the entire Hebrew bible.  However, the messianic king-priest is mentioned in Zech 6:13, the figure of a king-priest became significant to the Maccabees who were priests that took the role of kings, and Melchizedek is also mentioned prominently in some of the Qumran scrolls.  It is reasonable to surmise that the author brings this figure up because he knew that Melchizedek was familiar and significant to this particular group of Jewish believers. 

και δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν          This phrase is generally translated as a coordinate clause 'and it is difficult to interpret.' The first word, δυσερμηνευτος, is a compound form.  The prefix δυσ- implies difficulty; the base word is a genitive noun meaning 'interpetation', and this compound noun is modifying the infinitive λεγειν.  Now, there are two Greek words that refer to speaking: λαλεω and λεγω.  The difference between the two is that λαλεω refers to the act of speaking and λεγω refers to the content of what is spoken.  Note that λογος and λεγειν both come from the same root, both function as nouns, and both refer to the content of what is spoken – the message being conveyed.  The two words δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν are difficult to translate because they consist of an infinitive phrase joined to a verbless clause by και.  Unlike the Hebrew vav conjunction, και is always a conjunction and never an asseverative (emphatic), concessive, or adversative particle.  (One might argue that this construction is a Hebraism, but everywhere else the book of Hebrews contains the most elegant Greek in the entire the New Testament.)  As a Greek conjunction, και must join syntactical elements of equal weight.  Consequently, this string of words could be understood as either as a compound subject within a single verbless clause or as second verbless clause. The latter option is the interpretation used for essentially every modern translation, because the words are much easier to render as such.  The former option cannot be rendered into English using the same syntactic structures present in the Greek text, so the words must be paraphrased.  A possible rendering might be: Concerning whom to us great is the message and difficult of interpretation…   In either case, the point being expressed is that the content of this important message is difficult to explain to them because they have become sluggish listeners.

επει νωθροι γεγονατε ταις ακοαις        This is the only clause in the verse that is not difficult to translate: … because you have become sluggish with respect to hearing.