onewithhim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 5:37 pmNo, it is the Father's throne. Scholars agree that the verse could very well read "thy throne, God, is forever and ever." Or: "God is thy throne forever and ever." The "O" doesn't need to be in the verse. It isn't translated that way elsewhere. On the basis of linguistics,
ho theos is more likely to mean "God," as it does hundreds of times throughout the New Testament, than "O God," a meaning it has in only three other places in the N.T.
This is wrong. First, Hebrews
could very well mean what you want it to, but only in the sense that "It's time for Thanksgiving dinner, Mom,"
could very well mean that my mother is the main course instead of turkey and stuffing. It's
possible, but that's literally the best argument you can make.
Second, on the "basis of linguistics," the phrase is more likely to be a vocative address. If the author is, in fact, telling us that God is metaphorically a throne, then it's a metaphor made nowhere else in or out of the Bible and one that, at best, barely makes sense.
Third, vocative address occurs in a number of verses throughout the New Testament and far more than three of them refer to
ὁ θεὸς. BeDuhn was apparently just super sloppy in his presumed digital text search. It looks like he caught "O God," but not things like "O my God," or "O wondrous God," both of which represent the vocative address as
ὁ θεὸς in Greek. Vocative address also appears multiple times in the Psalm quoted by the author and not just in the specific verses copied into Hebrews.
Fourth, one of the "three other places" that he should have seen is used unambiguously in Hebrews itself with similar grammar. Even if the construct were as rare as he represented to his unfortunate readers, it's one that the very author in question is known to use.
But, you've
been told this.
onewithhim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 5:37 pmMoreover, there is no other way to say "God is your throne" than the way Hebrews 1:8 reads.
That's false. It's so mind-bogglingly false that I had to double-check that BeDuhn actually wrote that sentence. He did. He's wrong. In fact, the other way to write it would eliminate the ambiguity. In Greek, one
may often omit the "to be" verb, but one doesn't have to. If the author had included the "is" and written the line as follows, there would be no ambiguity:
ὁ θρόνος σου ἐστὶν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. It's far less important, but there's also some flexibility in where the
ἐστὶν goes. It seems odd to me that someone that translates Coptic texts for a living wouldn't also read Greek, but that's the impression I get. Maybe he had a grad student write
Truth in Translation.
onewithhim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 5:37 pmPsalm 45 is being quoted in the verse. It is about what God has done for the person spoken to. Within the Jewish tradition, Psalm 45 has never been taken to call the king "God."
Somebody did, because that's how the Psalm appears to be translated into Greek in the Septuagint, which the author of Hebrews quoted. You were
told this, too.
onewithhim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 5:37 pmThe Greek translation of the psalm made before the beginning of Christianity, which reads exactly as the author of Hebrews has quoted it, certainly followed the traditional Jewish understanding of the verse, and
its translators thought that by using ho theos they were saying 'God is your throne,' not 'Your throne, O God.'
You appear to be wrong. Do you have any justification for why you might not be?
Very well might not be, even?
onewithhim wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 5:37 pmSee pages 97-101 in
Truth in Translation by Associate Professor of Religious Studies Jason David BeDuhn.
Or don't. BeDuhn's analysis was not only facile, but it seems he didn't have anyone double-check his work.
."
