Here we go: two translations that follow two slightly different translation philosophies, but came out almost identical on Hebrews 1:1-4:
First Translation:
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 had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Second Translation:
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 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. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
The first translation has 103 words while the second has106—so only a three-words difference. Their sentence structures are almost identical. And at times, it’s just a matter of using synonyms.
What striking similarities, I say!
Fascinating. And not knowing the versions makes me look more at the texts.
a Son vs. his Son
the worlds vs. the universe
reflection vs. radiance
These choices are profoundly different and just illustrate that you can’t do Bible translation without doing theology.
I have not looked up to see what these translations are, and my initial reaction is that the second translation flows better.
I, too, noticed the difference between “a Son” and “his Son.”
David, you and Nathan pressed me on this first one.
These choices are profoundly different and just illustrate that you can’t do Bible translation without doing theology.
Now we getting to the heart of the matter!
I have not looked up to see what these translations are, and my initial reaction is that the second translation flows better.
Nothingman, I don’t know…
Great post, TC. Once you know the translations, it really will challenge your preconceptions… in this case, I’m not really surprised at the similarity, but it’ll be interesting to explore the reasons behind some of the differences David identified.
One idea would be to share the passages in columns which would facilitate comparison. I can do that in Windows Live Writer but I don’t know how to do it in other editing platforms.
It’s always hard to exegete the openings of letters since they tend to be very stylized. But I do wonder about the relationship between the two “speak” verbs in vv 1 and 2. I thought about “having spoken” … “but now” … “has spoken might be better but I haven’t studied it in depth.
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ in v. 3 is a doozy. I’m not sure I like “imprint.”
While one could read something more theologically pertinent into the choice to use “a Son” rather than “his Son,” I don’t think the context allows too sharp a distinction to be made.
Either way, the comparison is between the way God spoke to his people in the past (prophets) and the way he spoke to “us” in these last days (a Son).
“His Son,” of course, clarifies a bit further what is true, but “a Son” is just as clear if read in context of the epistle as a whole.
Something similar could be said concerning “worlds” and “universe” . . . although translating τοὺς αἰῶνας
as “the ages” would be an interesting choice considering the way similar phrases are used in 6:5 and 9:26 (yet see 11:3, which probably tempers such an interpretation).
As for reflection vs. radiance . . . this choice could be an interesting one, full of ramifications.
The word ἀπαύγασμα can have an active sense (radiance) or a passive sense (reflection). The phrase in Hebrews 1:3 is ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης and is similar to Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 (ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀιδίου καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας)
which connects the ἀπαύγασμα of eternal light with a “spotless mirror.”
Thus as phrased in these translations, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης may mean either:
1) God’s glory shines clearly in the Son, or
2) God’s glory is reflected clearly in the Son.
Of course, in Hebrews the phrase ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης is connected with καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ . . . which could be “imprint” or “exact representation” as shown in the above translations. One might think from this option 2) (reflection) may be the correct translation of ἀπαύγασμα, but I’m not sure the question is answered in a definite way by the second phrase.
One important question to ask about the phrase ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, however, concerns the way in which both translations agree. Both translations render τῆς δόξης as of God’s glory. Yet is it possible to translate τῆς δόξης not as “of God’s glory,” but as “THE Glory”? . . . in other words, as a circumlocution for God?
Ahh, “Hebrews” is so much fun!
BTW, I haven’t figured out #2 although it is similar to my copy of TEV
Hehe… I recognized the first one right off because that’s been my regular version for reading this last year but the second one took a couple guesses.
I do think the second reads a bit more smoothly. The issue of “a Son” vs. “his Son”, however, is clearly a theological interpretation. I can’t see any justification in Greek for it nor is there any manuscript evidence supporting it. I wonder why the translators did it that way? I actually find it somewhat worrisome. I’m not really a fan of forcing a translation to support my theology, even if it happens to be orthodox or to read more smoothly.
1st = NRSV
2nd = TNIV
Well, now that the cat’s out of the bag… Considering these are #1 and #2 on TC’s recommended list of translations, it was a logical place to start. I thought he might throw a curveball with the NIV instead, but no…
As much as I like the NRSV, it seems that when it could go one way or the other, it often goes the other. Almost like it’s trying to be different.
Jeff
Great post, TC. Once you know the translations, it really will challenge your preconceptions… in this case, I’m not really surprised at the similarity, but it’ll be interesting to explore the reasons behind some of the differences David identified.
Thanks, El. Yes, those differences, but David is correct about the theological bent at the end of the day.
It’s always hard to exegete the openings of letters since they tend to be very stylized. But I do wonder about the relationship between the two “speak” verbs in vv 1 and 2. I thought about “having spoken” … “but now” … “has spoken might be better but I haven’t studied it in depth.
David, in v. 1 “Having spoken” is an aorist participle while “but now” … “has spoken” is an aorist active. I believe this is by design. A contrast is definitely there.
I don’t mind “imprint.” REB has “stamp,” which I think is good too.
Stuart, I really enjoy your masterful analysis. Here’s the full verse from Wisdom in the NRSV:
τῆς δόξης as a circumlocation of God is not too far-fetch, but the traditional understanding is probably better.
However we understand ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, the emphasis seems to be on the true nature of the Incarnate One.
I actually find it somewhat worrisome. I’m not really a fan of forcing a translation to support my theology, even if it happens to be orthodox or to read more smoothly.
Trierr, “a Son” or “his Son/the Son,” the Greek allows for either one. Now we have to really get into the theology, in this case, Christology, of the Hebrew writer to make our decision.
In Greek a definite noun does not need an article when precede by a preposition, so “the Son/his Son,” could work just fine.
But one can also make an equal argument that the Hebrew writer is contrasting “a Son” with “the prophets.”
Glenn, Were the NRSV and the TNIV on your desk or on your screen?
El, I’ve been reading the NRSV lately, so no curveball, but you did give me an idea…;-)
Jeff, I’ve found some “strange” spots in the NRSV. I was taken aback at times.
“a Son” is unnatural in English whereas the Greek is natural.
Jeff, Almost like it’s trying to be different.
I’ve had the same thought several times.
I deduced that it might be these two and checked my premise online as I don’t own either of these translations.
Well, good one Glenn.
I am always surprised how many preconceived ideas I have about translations. I hope you try it out this way for a little while just to see if the comments change much. Thanks for the indulgence.
Nathan, it’s a start and a good idea. But I’m so controversial to the bone.
Pingback: A Few Thoughts on the Translation Debate « ἐν ἐφέσῳ: Thoughts and Meditations