Peter Kirby

This discussion inspired me to go through the Book of Hebrews to find every occurence of εἰ + imperfect, to see whether the idea that the action in the protasis is no longer on-going can be carried through in all cases. I found two others, and they are consistent with the suggested interpretation.

Hebrews 7:11. Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευιτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ' αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;

Young's: If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood -- for the people under it had received law -- what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

This passage indicates that the people had received the law under the Levitical priesthood, which was considered the way to perfection, but it is so no longer, as shown by the further need for a new priest (Christ).

Hebrews 8:7. Εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος·

Young's: [and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned,] for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second.

The author would have known Psalm 19:7, "The law of Jehovah [is] perfect, refreshing the soul." Without making God a liar, the author would have thought that the law was perfect for a time, but that a new covenant has been made necessary.

However, I would not like to use Hebrews 8:4 to prove an earthly interpretation of the Christ there. I would suggest simply that the verse to which Doherty devotes an appendix is not the "smoking gun" that it is made out to be. The interpretation drawn from the grammar of Hewett with reference to Gal. 1:10 is reasonable.

That's a good question, although I'm not a fan of the argument from number of translations. On Hebrews 9:28, Doherty writes, "As long ago as the turn of this century, Vaughan (quoted in The Expositor's Greek Testament, Hebrews, p. 340) translated verse 28: 'Christ died once and the next thing before him is the Advent.'" Someone can object that most translations suggest the idea of "a second time," but that is an unsound objection that is made necessary by ignorance of Greek. Oftentimes translators accept the rendering as it has come down for centuries, as a sort of "Bible English," without attempting to specify the particular suspected meaning and make it clear. That's the diplomatic way to translate, and it's part of why any serious student of the New Testament will want to put in the work to learn the languages.

In this case, part of the reason may be that the meaning shifted between Homeric Greek and Koine Greek. In Homeric Greek, the construction would mean only "had been," while in the first century speakers of Greek would have been indicating action continuous in the now when using IF + Imperfect in a contra-factual way. (This info was gleaned from the Liddell-Scott.) So the translators may not have applied a knowledge of specifically Koine Greek (especially translators of yesteryear), not being aware of there being a possible problem with their translations, and in general not wanting to suggest that they are giving a fresh spin on the texts (conservativism in translation). Finally, many translators probably thought that the meaning was implied, if not explicit, with the way that they phrased it. In any case, we must work with the Greek text.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Thank you Peter for your answers,
Best Regards, Bernard

MortalWombat

For what it's worth, here is Richard Carrier's view of Doherty's translation of Hebrews 8:4 in his review of The Jesus Puzzle:

I'm not really sure what point Carrier is trying to make here. Is he saying that Doherty has the right translation, but for the wrong reasons, or what?

Peter Kirby

Doherty holds out for the possibility that the construction is a reference to the past, and Carrier points out that Doherty is not holding out for that possibility for any good reason--the interpretation of "had been at a time in the past" would require the aorist instead of the imperfect in Koine Greek. Yet, perhaps because of the majority translation (Carrier suggests intuition), Doherty attempts to make his argument working with the reference to the present (though not quite the same way as I've presented it), and Carrier sees the argument as having some force even though it is a reference to Christ not being on earth now. But I think that the argument is inconclusive because the idea that the existence of Christ on earth is no longer ongoing (the imperfective aspect in a present contra-factual condition) is a permissible interpretation (regardless of how we choose the words used in a translation). In simple words, the author could have meant that Jesus is no longer on earth. As I said, I don't want to turn this into an anti-mythicist argument; I have written in response to a positive argument.

best,
Peter Kirby

Geoff Hudson

Knowing the Greek is fine. But you can "miss the wood for the trees", or even worse miss the editor's deliberate "slip of the pen" The above example is a classic.

A priest is NOT an order. A PRIESTHOOD is an order.

(11)If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical PRIESTHOOD (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another PRIEST{HOOD} to come – one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

The key issue here is not the priest, but the priesthood which is to do with the means by which a person becomes acceptable to God.

Knowing the Greek is useless if in the end you get the logic wrong.

Geoff

Peter Kirby

I totally agree.

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

As a side note, it is perhaps worth noting that that this verb is in the imperfect active indicative (as opposed to the passive or middle).

Most often HN is translated as "was" (for example in GJn 1:1 EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS). However the present participle in the dependent clause clearly implies ongoing action in the present. I can see of no conceivable way that it should be translated as "had been". I suspect Kirby's observation regarding changing usage from classical to Koine is spot on.

My go at the most literal an accurate translation would be:

"For [note the post positive GAR is not in all MSS and is shown in the critical apparatus of NA27 but I like the way it sounds] if indeed he were on earth, not even would he be a priest..."

It thus seems clear to me that the author of Hebrews is creating an hypothetical situation rather than referring to some time in the past.

MortalWombat

So using an analogy, it would be like saying "if he were on the moon, he would not be a Martian" does not contradict the conclusion that he was never on the moon, but it doesn't support it either, correct? It would be indeterminate based on that one phrase whether or not he has ever been to the moon in the past.

Peter Kirby

I dropped the word Active on purpose. Hewett writes, "As in English, 'to be' expresses a state of being, rather than action. Hence, it has neither active nor passive voices." (New Testament Greek, p. 22)

I agree that it is not referring to a time in the past; that means that CX, Carrier, and maybe even Doherty agree on that.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I hate being forced into an analogy like this, so I'll give you four.

"If Tommy Maddox were playing football, he wouldn't be in the XFL, because the XFL is defunct."

"If Bobby Fischer were participating in chess tournaments, he wouldn't be the world's greatest, because Deep Blue is better than any human."

"If I were playing Starcraft, I would not be Protoss, for everyone likes to play as Protoss."

"If Pablo were in Mexico, he would not be a translator, for there are already people fluent in Spanish and English to do translation."

I suck at analogies. Don't take any of these as being a strict correspondence.

best,
Peter Kirby