Bernard Muller

"Hebrews 8:4 states: "Now, if he **had been** on earth, he [Jesus] would not even **have been** a priest ...""
The other bibles I consulted do not have "had been" & "have been" but rather "were" & "be", as in:
"If then indeed he **were** upon earth, he would not even **be** a priest, there being those who *offer* the gifts according to the law" (Darby)
My questions:
Is Doherty's translation incorrect, "stretched", acceptable, or better than Darby's?
Is Darby's translation incorrect, "stretched", acceptable, or better than Doherty's?
Greek linguists required!
The Greek, of course, but also the context, such as the tense of "offer" would need to be considered.
Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

http://greeknewtestament.com/B58C008.htm

King James Version
8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

American Standard Version
8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law;

Bible in Basic English
8:4 If he had been on earth he would not have been a priest at all, because there are other priests who make the offerings ordered by the law;

Darby's English Translation
8:4 If then indeed he were upon earth, he would not even be a priest, there being those who offer the gifts according to the law,

Douay Rheims
8:4 If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest: seeing that there would be others to offer gifts according to the law,

Noah Webster Bible
8:4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

Weymouth New Testament
8:4 If then He were still on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since here there are already those who present the offerings in obedience to the Law,

World English Bible
8:4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;

Young's Literal Translation
8:4 for if, indeed, he were upon earth, he would not be a priest -- (there being the priests who are offering according to the law, the gifts,

Also:

Revised Standard Version
8:4. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.

New American Bible
8:4. If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are those who offer gifts according to the law.

Now, I haven't looked at the Greek yet, because I need an answer to this first: what is it that you want to know about the Greek text? Besides the choice of words, what is the semantic difference between these translations? No translation is a perfect representation of the original, but necessarily must decide to exchange one set of words with a certain range of meaning with another set of words with a different range of meaning. On the b-Greek list, discussion of whether a translation is better or worse is not permitted, because that is not quite relevant to an understanding of the Greek (though of course English can be used to describe that understanding). So instead of making an issue of the translation used, we should be concerned with the meaning that is intended by the original author. What is the meaning that you attribute to Doherty, and what is the meaning which you attribute to other interpreters?

best,
Peter Kirby

Amos

The point made here is that Jesus was set free from the law and should not offer gifts or even pay attention to the law. If he did it would contradict his higher calling as son of God.

This means that Christians are set free from religion and also that Christian religions cannot possibly exist. Go to Galations 5:4 and read that if we still seek our justification in the law we have already fallen from Gods favor.

sodium

Doherty seems a little uncommitted to that particular translation. Note that the word "en" is supposed to have a line over the e. I know nothing about Greek, so I can't confirm or deny.

Doherty's point is really,

Both quotes are from page 310 of the Jesus Puzzle, 2000 printing.

And so that people can place this in some kind of context, here's a little bit of the surrounding text, from the King James (which I am quoting because it is public domain).

The King James encourages a different reading by omitting the "even". But it appears that Jesus is still viewed as a high priest who offers some kind of sacrifice in heaven, and not on earth, as there are already earthly priests to offer earthly sacrifices.

And it does appear to be another odd "silence". It's kind of like,

"If Queen Elizabeth were on earth, she would not be a Bishop, as the roles of secular and religious leader must be separate."

The phrasing makes you think, "Huh? Queen Elizabeth was on earth and she wasn't a bishop. What the heck are you talking about? Why are you trying to derive a well-known historical fact from some ideal principle?"

Bernard Muller

Peter, I see, there is a "Bible in Basic English" which goes according to Doherty's translation. I never heard about it before.

"through of course English can be used to describe that understanding".
That's what I am after.

"So instead of making an issue of the translation used"
Who is making an issue? I asked something simple & you respond with a deluge of words and not on what I want.

"we should be concerned with the meaning that is intended by the original author."
Whatever, that's what I want, an English translation which reproduces "the meaning that is intended by the original author". That's clear. No more about going around the bush.

"What is the meaning that you attribute to Doherty, and what is the meaning which you attribute to other interpreters?"
Does someone who asks about a translation has to go through that?
I do not know. Obviously I was asking about the verbs used, and more so their tense.

For me, "if he had been on earth" conveys the feeling Jesus was never on earth.
"if he were on earth" is an hypothetical situation in the present (when the letter was written), at a time when, of course, Jesus was not believed to be on earth.
So what I am looking for, about the tenses used, about the meaning of the verse, about an English translation which is not misleading, which is according to what the Greek author meant and brings nothing more.
Why the fuss? And then I was asking for a graded opinion, not like only right or wrong. As I said:
"Is Doherty's translation incorrect, "stretched", acceptable, or better than Darby's?
Is Darby's translation incorrect, "stretched", acceptable, or better than Doherty's?"

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Doherty admits that the best translation indicates the present tense.

Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, at 310.

Peter Kirby

Thank you, Bernard, now I know what you want.

Doherty himself refers to the New English Bible (1961) for his translation of Hebrews 8:4.

Here is the verse in Greek:

εἰ μὲν οὖν ἦν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὐδ' ἂν ἦν ἱερεύς, ὄντων τῶν προσφερόντων κατὰ νόμον τὰ δῶρα.

ἦν is the verb that is used twice. This verb is the Imperfect Indicative 3rd Singular from Lexical Form ειμι. See the Liddell-Scott entry. It basically means "to be."

James Allen Hewett gives this definition of the Imperfect: "The imperfect tense expresses an action that is viewed as in progress (kind of action) in a past time (time of action)." (New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar, p. 57) However, Hewett writes specifically of the ειμι verb: "The protasis will be regularly introduced by ει. The condition of unreality indicates something is not or was not actualized. By using the imperfect tense in these conditions the Greek indicates on-going kind of action. The time of that action, when the imperfect is used, is regularly the present. (Conditions referring to past time use the aorist or pluperfect.) Thus, in Gal. 1:10 Paul wrote εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον [impft of ἀρέσκω = 'to strive to please'], χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην, 'If I were still striving to please men, I would not be a slave of Christ.' The imperfects in both clauses, plus the ἂν in the apodosis, tell the reader this is a 'contrary-to-fact' condition." (New Testament Greek, pp. 59-60) If this is accurate information, the sense would be something like "if he were still on earth," to indicate on-going nature of the imperfect tense and the "now" meaning of the Greek ειμι when the conditional uses the imperfect, rather than the aorist or pluperfect.

προσφερόντων is the verb used in the latter clause. This verb is the Present Active Participle Masculine Plural Genitive from Lexical Form προσφερω. See the Liddell-Scott entry. It basically means "who offer."

Anne H. Groton writes: "The present tense of the indicative mood denotes an action happening in the present time. It may be an action happening now and only now, or it may be one that goes on all the time, including now. Most often it is viewed as a continuing, repeated, or habitual process; if so, the verb has imperfective aspect. Sometimes it is viewed as a simple, one-time occurence; if so, the verb has aoristic aspect. Although there is no difference in appearance between a present-tense verb with imperfective aspect and one with aoristic aspect, the context usually makes clear which aspect the author of the sentence had in mind." (From Alpha to Omega, p. 15) I think it is clear that the word used here has imperfective aspect, as the offerings are not a one-off event. It refers to the present and continuous offerings of the priests.

Hope this helps.

best,
Peter Kirby

sodium

If true, that would appear to be very damaging to Doherty's claim that the writer of Hebrews doesn't believe in an earthly Jesus, since "still" implies this very thing. But I wonder why only Weymouth gives that translation.

Geoff Hudson

Exactly right! "He" is the Spirit who was never "on earth" as a human being is on earth. The Spirit resides in the "true tabernacle" (8:2) and he is the mediator of a superior covenant (8:6 and 2 Cor.3:6).

An editor substituted Jesus in an existing document that was all about the Spirit. The Spirit was the priest after the order of Melchizedek (7:11). The rubbish about Jesus belonging to a different tribe was an editor's change - it was Melchizedek who was not of Aaron.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

Come to think of it, the crackpots are the mythicists (who fail to recognise the real Jewish background to the NT), not Lewis. They are in "cloud cuckoo land".

Geoff