‘If they Will Enter my Rest’: The Impact of the Greek Translation Technique of Psalm 95 for the Argument of Hebrews 3 and 4

Abstract

Hebrews 4.3-5 introduces tension where the author cites Ps. 95.11b, ‘they will never enter into my rest’, then describes the available rest, and then quotes Ps. 95.11b again. The author appears to undercut the promise of rest by citing the prohibitive oath. This article argues that the tension in Heb. 4.3-5 can be dissolved by translating Ps. 95.11b not as an emphatic negative oath (‘they will never enter into my rest’) but as an open-ended conditional statement (‘if they will enter into my rest’). This is argued in the following way: first, the issue of an assumed Hebraism is explained. Second, three problems with the Hebraism solution are presented. Third, the Interlinear Paradigm of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is introduced resulting in two further criticisms of the Hebraism translation. Last, the author’s argument in Heb. 4.3-5 is read with the meaning of the open-ended conditional.

Keywords

Hebraism Hebrews 3 and 4 Psalm 95 Septuagint translation technique rest

The author of Hebrews draws upon many OT images in order to proclaim the excellency of Jesus Christ and to motivate his listeners to faithful endurance. Perhaps Matthew Easter (2014: 79) is correct when he observes that the author uses imagery such as salvation, promise, reward, promised eternal inheritance, God’s rest and an enduring homeland all to point to the same eschatological reality. The author’s unique application of the Promised Land imagery in Heb. 3 and 4 to point to rest beyond the physical land is one of his most memorable uses of OT imagery.

One interesting area for discussion in relation to the imagery of rest is the tension in the author’s argument in Heb. 4.3-5 due to his use of the emphatic negative oath statement found in Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG: ‘they will never enter into my rest’. Heb. 4.3b-5 states,

[J]ust as he said, ‘as I swore in my wrath, they will never enter into my rest’ and yet the works have been accomplished from the foundations of the world. For he said somewhere concerning the seventh day in this way, ‘and God rested on the seventh day from all his works’. And again in this way, ‘they will never enter into my rest!’

In this translation, which is representative of modern Bible translations, one can quickly see the seeming disconnect between the author’s statements of never entering the rest and yet a supposed rest is still available, which is explicitly stated in Heb. 4.1, 6, 9 and 11.

In Heb. 4.3-5 the author of Hebrews brings together Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG and Gen. 2.2 LXX seemingly in order to explicate the nature of the rest. In fact, several commentators, for example, Peter O’Brien (2010: 167 n. 65), Jon Laansma (1997: 288-91) and Gert Steyn (2011: 185-86) observe a chiastic structure wherein Ps. 94.11b LXX/OG acts as a bookend around Gen. 2.2.¹ Thus, the negative statement ‘they will never enter my rest’ surrounds the seeming positive statement of rest which is argued. However, if we read the passage as normally translated, with an emphatic negative statement for Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG, then the author’s argument becomes so opaque as to appear illogical. Commentators allude to this tension in the argument, and several bring the tension out explicitly.² Laansma (1997: 288) notes the difficulty of the argument and draws attention to the ‘seeming incongruity of their [referring to Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG and Gen. 2.2 LXX] statements’.

Craig Koester’s (2001: 278) description of the problem is helpful. He states,

In 4.4-5 the author creates tension in his argument by making two points without explicating them. First, he cites the divine oath prohibiting entry into the land to imply that those who believe will be brought into divine rest but he does not explain how the text can be understood in this way. Second, he abruptly connects the prohibition against entering God’s rest from Ps. 95.11 with a quotation from Gen. 2.2 that recalls how God rested after completing his work of creation.

Albert Vanhoye (2011: 139) concludes,

The rest of the text is disconcerting. It seems incoherent. The author states that our entry into rest is in conformity with the oath made by God in his anger – an oath which excludes rest. The author explained himself very badly.

How can the promised rest be available on the one hand, and yet we are twice told that ‘they will never enter into my rest’ on the other hand? How does the emphatic negative support the author’s argument? If we formally translate the Greek of Heb. 4.3 and 5, which is really the Old Greek Ps. 94.11, then it would be rendered ‘if they will enter into my rest’. However, interpreters and modern translations consistently read a Hebraism into this grammatical construction which means that the plain sense of the Greek syntax is overturned by the Hebrew idiom in order to be read as an emphatic negative oath.

I argue that the tension in the author’s argument in Heb. 4.3-5 can be dissolved by understanding the author of Hebrews to read Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG not as an emphatic negative (‘they will never enter into my rest’) but as an open-ended conditional statement (‘if they will enter into my rest’). First, the significant issue of a possible Hebraism is explained. Second, three problems with the Hebraism solution are presented. Third, the Interlinear Paradigm of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is introduced and applied to Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG which results in two further criticisms of the Hebraism. Last, the author’s argument in Heb. 4.3-5 is read with the meaning of the open-ended conditional.

The Argument for a Supposed Hebraism Reading of Psalm 94.11 LXX/OG in Hebrews 3.11, 4.3 and 4.5

In Heb. 3.7-11, the author cites Ps. 94.7c-11 LXX/OG. Again in 4.3 and 4.5 he cites Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG. Hebrews 3.11 and 4.3 read, ὡς ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου‎. Hebrews 4.5 has the second half of this statement, εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου‎. Here we see that the author has followed the Greek text which we have today (Steyn 2011: 181).³

It is at this point that we find English translations and commentaries on Hebrews resorting to a supposed Hebraism in the text in order to convert the Greek conditional into the Hebrew emphatic negative.⁴ Here is a representative sample of commentators’ explanations: Paul Ellingworth (1993: 220) states, ‘[i]n v. 11b, εἰ‎ is used like Hebrew אִם‎ to introduce a strong negative statement (Moule 179; BD §372[4])’. William Lane (1991: 82) states in a similar fashion,

The construction εἰ with the future ind corresponds to a familiar Heb. construction where the particle אִם‎ (which commonly means ‘if’) followed by a verb expresses emphatic denial. See Moule, Idiom-Book, 179; BDF §372(4).

This familiar Hebrew construction to which these interpreters refer is clearly seen in the Hebrew of Ps. 95.11 MT. In Ps. 95.11b MT, an interesting grammatical construction is present which does not cause any trouble when understanding the Hebrew text but becomes an important issue when we examine the Greek of Ps. 94 in the LXX/OG. Verse 11b states,

אשׁר־נשׁבעתי באפי אם־יבאון אל־מנוחתי׃‎

When I swore in my wrath, they will never enter into my rest! (Ps. 95.11b)

The key issue is how to understand the Hebrew conditional particle אִם. A straightforward formal reading of the Hebrew text would give us ‘if they will enter into my rest’. However, every major modern translation of Ps. 95 MT renders this as an emphatic negative: ‘they will never enter into my rest!’⁵ This is due to an idiomatic Hebrew syntactical construction wherein the אִם introduces the protasis of a conditional statement and the apodosis is left to be filled in by the reader; usually something like ‘may I be cursed’.⁶ The result of this elided apodosis is that an oath is formed which negates the protasis. Often an introductory verb swearing an oath is present (e.g., נשבעתי). Blane Conklin (2011: 37) observes that in the Hebrew Bible 74 oaths are introduced by אִם in 61 texts. He also notes that 90% of the time an imperfective verb is used in the protasis (2011: 40-41). Thus, the negative oath in Ps. 95.11 MT is typical of this kind of oath in the Hebrew Bible. This idiomatic Hebrew grammar rule is not debated in translations or commentaries on Ps. 95.11 MT; in fact, it is often not even discussed.⁷

The previous comments from Lane and Ellingworth provide essentially the same statement. First, the Hebrew particle אִם is used in an oath statement to introduce an emphatic negative in the Hebrew. Second, they state that the Greek reflects this common idiom from the Hebrew Bible. Third, the author and his audience understood this Hebrew idiomatic grammar and read their Greek text in light of it. This third point is never explicitly stated, but it must be inferred from scholars’ statements in order for their explanation to make sense.

In spite of the consensus opinion that the author of Hebrews is reading his text in light of a common Hebraism, several significant problems and dubious assumptions undergird this explanation. In the following five points of criticism, the first three points of criticism argue that specific assumptions, which are needed for the Hebraism explanation to make sense, are improbable; the last two points of criticisms apply the Interlinear Paradigm of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) in order to demonstrate the unlikelihood of the Hebraism for Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG. It is important to note that any one of these criticisms creates doubt about the Hebraism solution, and all together they suggest a formal reading of the author of Hebrews’ use of Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG (i.e., as an open-ended conditional).

Criticism #1: The Hebraism Translation Assumes that the Author Knew the Hebrew Language Well Enough to Discern this Idiom

To say that the Hebrew language was used minimally outside of Judea is perhaps overstating its use. Little evidence exists to support the use of Hebrew outside of Israel.⁸ Karen Jobes and Moises Silva (2000: 82) state,

In the two centuries before Jesus, most Jews in the world spoke Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, just as most Jews today do not speak modern Hebrew, at least not as their native language. For them, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was the only Bible with which they could have been personally familiar.

Thus, in general, the Hebrew language was not used in the western diaspora.

Furthermore, no evidence exists to suggest that the author of Hebrews could read Hebrew. It is almost axiomatic in studies of Hebrews to note that the author uses the Greek text solely.⁹ Martin Karrer (2006: 339) summarizes the author’s knowledge of Hebrew when he states,

Regarding language, our author consistently chooses Greek traditions, as noted. We do not find a single Hebrew or Aramaic relic in the quotations or elsewhere in Hebrews. Moreover, no quotation presents us with undisputable evidence of a correction by our author toward the Hebrew (Proto-MT) text … So, there is no proof of a knowledge of Hebrew. In any case, the Qumranic or proto-rabbinic tendency to return to the Hebrew text of Scriptures is not found in this book. There is a clear conviction that the Greek language was appropriate to the speaking of God.¹⁰

Thus, if we consider the author’s knowledge of Hebrew in terms of ‘external evidence’ and ‘internal evidence’, then we find that it is highly improbable that he knew Hebrew. By ‘external evidence’ I mean the evidence which can be marshaled towards an argument for anyone in the western diaspora to speak or to read Hebrew, and by ‘internal evidence’ I mean the evidence which can be culled specifically concerning the author within his homily.

Criticism #2: The Hebraism Translation Assumes that the Author had before him a Hebrew Manuscript, and that he did a Comparative Reading of the Hebrew and Greek Text

In order for the author of Hebrews to read a Hebraism into the Greek text, he would need a copy of the Hebrew manuscript in order to discern the Hebraism. It seems possible that he did have possession of some OT Greek manuscripts. The extent and precision of his citations and allusions points in this direction. Karrer (2006: 342-44) argues that the author did have a copy of Greek Psalms, Jeremiah and at least access to the Pentateuch.¹¹ Laansma (1997: 263-64) argues also that ‘the case [is] very strong that Auctor [the author] composed this entire passage (3,7-4,11) with Num 14 open before him’.¹² However, in order for the Hebraism solution to be true, the author had to not only know the Hebrew language, but also needed to have access to Hebrew texts in order to make comparative readings. In many ways, the argument from the previous point applies here as well: the author shows no evidence of citing a Hebrew text, and he provides no evidence of favoring a Hebrew reading over a Greek reading.¹³ Also, texts were expensive and time consuming to make. Is it likely that the author owned a Hebrew text, read Hebrew and yet makes no argument based on the Hebrew?

Criticism #3: The Hebraism Translation Assumes that the Author’s Audience Knew the Hebrew Language, and that they Owned a Hebrew Text with which they Could Do a Comparative Reading

Even if we acknowledge, for the sake of argument, that the author did know Hebrew well enough to discern the Hebrew idiom for himself, and that he had the means to compare a Hebrew text and Greek text, then there would still be a need for him to explain this Hebraism to his audience. The fact that the author did not explain this usage in any of the three citations of Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG in Heb. 3.11, 4.3 or 4.5 is striking.

No corrections in the text by the author demonstrate that this specific Greek phrase should be rendered as an emphatic negative versus an open-ended conditional. This would have been easy to correct; the author could have added an οὐ‎ or οὐ μή‎ plus a subjunctive verb. One also wonders how his readers were to understand the sense if their teacher did not explain it to them? To assume that the author’s audience was skilled enough to read ‘between the lines’ and fill in the Hebrew idiom is surely an unwarranted assumption.¹⁴

Some readers may find in Heb. 3.18 data to support the author’s and his audience’s understanding of the Hebraism. In Heb. 3.18, the author asks a rhetorical question concerning to whom did ‘he swear that they would not enter his rest …’. It is clear that he knew the wilderness generation was forbidden from entering into the Promised Land; however, this does not mean he gleaned that information from Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG. Hebrews 3.16-19 demonstrates that the author was drawing several details from Num. 14 LXX in order to flesh out more fully the narrative of Ps. 94 LXX/OG.¹⁵ We could say that the author was reading Num. 14 LXX through the lens of Ps. 94 LXX/OG.¹⁶ Numbers 14 LXX functions as a narrative substructure for the author’s argument. In light of the author’s mining of Num. 14 LXX for narrative detail, it seems plausible that he could also have drawn the information that God made an oath prohibiting the wilderness generation from entering into the Promised Land from that passage.¹⁷ In Num. 14.21-23 LXX, God makes an oath prohibiting that generation from entering the land. Thus, the author knows that the Israelites were prohibited by God from entering into the rest, but he draws that information into his discussion by means of Num. 14 LXX and not Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG. The merit of this explanation is that it provides a plausible understanding for the author’s statement in Heb. 3.18, and it allows us to read the author’s understanding of Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG in light of his Greek-speaking milieu.

Now that we have discussed the first three criticisms of the use of a Hebraism, it is appropriate to discuss the translation technique of the Septuagint and provide the final two criticisms.

The Interlinear Paradigm and the Translation Technique of the Septuagint

The editors of NETS, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin Wright (2007: xiii-xx), articulate their translation philosophy in the foreword; however, there has been further clarification, discussion and defense of this model, which has become known as the Interlinear Paradigm.¹⁸ Translating the Septuagint into a modern language is a complex process which raises a whole host of issues. Perhaps the most fundamental issue with which to wrestle is to recognize that modern translations of the Septuagint are translations of a translation; they are, thus, not generally translations of an original Greek composition.¹⁹ At least two fundamental concerns all modern language translations of the Septuagint have to consider are: first, the linguistic relationship between the Hebrew Vorlage and the Greek translation; and, second, the significance of the production of the text as a translation and its later reception as an independent, authoritative text.²⁰ The Interlinear Paradigm takes a clear stance in regard to both of these points.

Concerning the first issue, that of the linguistic relationship of the Hebrew Vorlage and Greek translation, the advocates of the Interlinear Paradigm argue that the text-linguistic character of the Septuagint demonstrates that, as a translation, it is characterized by ‘subservience and dependence’ upon its Hebrew or Aramaic Vorlage.

Co-editor of the NETS, Wright (2010: 30), provides this description,

In most cases, the LXX/OG translators clearly translated at the word level rather than at the clause or discourse level. Indeed, if one can generalize this seems to be the primary translation approach. This isomorphism often leads to representations in Greek of Hebrew lexemes or grammatical and syntactical conventions that look decidedly un-Greek, even if they might not necessarily violate Greek rules (although they sometimes do that).

Also, Cameron Boyd-Taylor (2011: 89-99), who argues for the Interlinear Paradigm, summarizes, explains and illustrates several reasons why the NETS editors describe the LXX/OG translation as one of dependence upon its source text. Boyd-Taylor (2011: 91) first notes that the LXX/OG is ‘translationese’, which is described thus: ‘Hebrew constructions tend to be represented in the Greek at the expense of Greek idiom’. Second, he points out that the LXX/OG is viewed as having the characteristic of ‘unintelligibility’. In other words, the meaning of the Greek text does not always make sense as a Greek text, yet, when it is lined up with the Hebrew text the confusion disappears.²¹

Thus, proponents of the Interlinear Paradigm argue that the LXX/OG was originally intended to be read in conjunction with the Hebrew Vorlage. Therefore, its meaning at places can only be understood with reference to its parent text. This means that one can describe the linguistic relationship between Hebrew Vorlage and Greek translation as one of a bilingual diglot, i.e., an interlinear.

It is important to note that Pietersma, Wright and Boyd-Taylor are not arguing for an actual historical interlinear diglot comprised of Hebrew on the one side and Greek on the other.²² Pietersma (2002: 346-50) argues that this could be possible and should not be ruled out; however, no historical evidence exists to support this interlinear diglot.²³ Pietersma (2001: 219; 2010: 5, 16-19) argues that ‘interlinearity’ should be understood as a metaphor which allows us to describe the text-linguistic character of the LXX/OG in relation to its Vorlage.²⁴ Thus, the Interlinear Paradigm is a metaphor, or a model which is intended to evoke a certain mental construct in order to provide explanation for the LXX/OG as a translation; it is a phrase intended to refer to the linguistic relationship between source and translation – between Hebrew and Greek. That linguistic relationship is one of subservience and dependence upon its Vorlage.

The second characteristic of the Interlinear Paradigm is to translate from a specific Sitz im Leben – that of the production of the LXX/OG.²⁵ It is important to note that this intended focus on the LXX/OG as produced is distinct from what the later reception history of the LXX/OG came to be at any specific time. Boyd-Taylor (2011: 17) states that translation of the Septuagint can be done from any point in its reception history, yet translators need to be clear in distinguishing translation at the point of Septuagint production versus later in reception history.²⁶

Furthermore, Pietersma (2002: 340) states,

It should, therefore, be clear from the outset that, when I speak of the Interlinear Paradigm, I am speaking of the birth of the Septuagint, i.e. its original Sitz im Leben, and not about subsequent history and subsequent Sitze im Leben assigned to this body of literature.

Concerning the second issue, that of original production of the Septuagint versus its later historical reception, proponents of the Interlinear Paradigm acknowledge that several different points along the reception history timeline exist from which one could potentially translate the LXX/OG. They have chosen to translate from the first point on that timeline, the point of production. Thus, by focusing on the time period of production, interlinear proponents are acknowledging that sometime after the LXX/OG was translated it became a free-standing, independent, authoritative religious text. This is important because, if this distinction is not held, then, information from the Hebrew source will be uncritically used to explain and ‘fill out’ the meaning of the LXX/OG as if production and reception history are compressed into one instance.

One could, at first glance, mistakenly understand the Interlinear Paradigm to freely allow translators of the LXX/OG to appeal to the Hebrew text and import Hebrew meaning into their modern language translation. However, this is not how proponents of the Interlinear Paradigm intend it to be used. They argue that the LXX/OG is a Greek text, and as such it should be translated within the parameters of the normal Greek language usage of the day.²⁷ However, because of the inherent ‘unintelligibility’ of parts of the Greek text, the Hebrew Vorlage can provide a limited arbitration of meaning, although it cannot bring new meaning to the text. Pietersma (2008b: 178) clarifies this point when he states,

But again, let me emphasize: the source text can only be used to arbitrate among existing meanings (senses) in the target language. It cannot be used to create new meanings imported from the source text. It ought thus be clear once and for all that the principle of the source text as an arbiter of meaning, instead of being a license for superimposing the source text on the target text, is in fact quite the opposite, namely, a prohibition against such superimposition.

In other words, if the Greek text is ambiguous because, for example, the semantic range of the Greek lexeme can hold several potential meanings which may fit the context, then the Hebrew Vorlage can be appealed to in order to clarify which one is meant. However, this does not mean that the Hebrew Vorlage can ‘superimpose the source on the target text’.²⁸

In the chart below, Ps. 95.11b MT, Ps. 94.11b LXX/OG and Ps. 94.11b NETS, are compared:

Ps. 95.11b MT	אשׁר־נשׁבעתי באפי אם־יבאון אל־מנוחתי׃‎
Ps. 94.11b LXX/OG²⁹	ὡς ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου‎
Ps. 94.11b NETS³⁰	As I swore in my wrath, ‘If they shall enter into my rest!’

As noted previously in the discussion of Ps. 95.11b MT, the Hebrew grammatical construction in this verse is idiomatic.³¹ When we turn to the Greek translation, we quickly see that the Greek syntax does not provide a negative statement; in fact, the Greek translation is translated quite formally from the Hebrew. It is important to observe at this point that the Hebraic grammatical idiom does not have a parallel counterpart in Greek grammar. Thus, the protasis in a conditional statement with an elided apodosis does not equal an oath statement in Koine Greek.³² That the LXX/OG translator for Ps. 94.11b rendered his text ‘word for word’ is quite clear.³³ Pietersma’s English translation in the NETS follows this clear Greek syntax and translates the Greek into English as an open-ended conditional (‘if they shall enter into my rest!’).

Pietersma does not translate the Greek text as an emphatic negative. Why is this? The NETS translation is consistent with its principles in that it does not allow the Hebrew Vorlage to import new meaning, which is unattested in Greek, into the Greek text. The Greek text is translated as Greek text, and the open-ended conditional is a clear rendition of the Greek. If the Greek text was read alongside the Hebrew Vorlage, then one would have an accurate reflection of the Hebrew in the Greek as far as formal qualities even though the idiomatic meaning would have to be explained separately from the texts. This English translation renders the Greek text as it is with the understanding that it would originally be read alongside the Hebrew Vorlage.

However, if the LXX/OG began to be viewed as an authoritative work which people read independently from the Hebrew source, then it would be less and less likely that someone would be able to know the Hebraistic grammatical idiom and ‘fill it in’ to Ps. 94.11b LXX/OG.

These two characteristics of the Interlinear Paradigm of the NETS translation provide the foundation for our final two criticisms of the Hebraism solution.

Criticism #4: The Hebraism Translation Uncritically Translates the LXX/OG in Light of the Hebrew Text

To state that the author of Hebrews is reading Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG with the Hebrew grammatical idiom assumes that the author, as a Greek reader, was reading the LXX/OG as dependent and subservient to the Hebrew Vorlage. However, even the Interlinear Paradigm, which argues for a nuanced use of the Hebrew Vorlage when translating the Greek text, treats the Greek of Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG as a Greek text. Furthermore, to state that the author of Hebrews read the Greek text in light of the Hebrew idiom begs the question of whether the LXX/OG was indeed read this way in the author of Hebrews’ day.

Scholarship has not adopted the Hebraism solution, however, on a whim. Grammars and lexicons have directed them towards this view. For example, BDF: 189, BDAG: 278, Frederick Conybeare and Stock (2001: §101) and Charles Moule (1975: 179) all list Heb. 3.11, 4.3 and 5 as a Hebraism. Takamitsu Muraoka’s (2009: 190) entry for εἰ‎ lists seven main options for the semantic range. The relevant option for our discussion states,

*4. Hebraism in strong negation after verbs of swearing: ὀμνύει.. εἰ ἐπιλησθήσεται‎ Am 8.7(b): swearing implied, Ge 14.23(b); ζῶ ἐγώ.. εἰ‎.. Nu 14.28-30(b); De 1.35(b), Ez 16.48(b). See under ἐὰν‎, III b.

The asterisk preceding the entry number draws attention to this usage not being attested in Greek prior to the Septuagint. In light of their descriptions, there appears to be no instances in extra-biblical Greek of εἰ being used in the protasis of a conditional sentence where the translation should reflect an emphatic negative.³⁴ It seems difficult to argue, based on the evidence, that this usage is typical for Koine Greek; it seems, in fact, to be found only in the Septuagint and is, thus, ‘translationese’.

What is needed when these grammars and lexicons are used is a critical method for nuancing the role of the Hebrew Vorlage when translating the LXX/OG. Just because a grammar or lexicon reports that the Septuagint reflects a certain usage (lexical or grammatical) does not mean that now that specific usage is considered typical Greek. In other words, the LXX/OG reflects translation Greek and not compositional Greek.³⁵

There seems to be a possible communication gap between the grammars and lexicons describing this usage as a Hebraism and NT scholars inferring that this is appropriate usage for translating LXX/OG citations in the NT. That Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG reflects a Hebrew idiom in its formal structure is true. If a reader, whether ancient or modern, reads the Greek text in dependence upon the Hebrew text, then it is possible that the meaning of the Hebrew idiom could be ‘filled in’. However, the Greek text as a Greek text is not an emphatic negative and should not be translated that way.

Criticism #5: The Hebraism Translation Uncritically Compresses the ‘Text as Produced’ and the ‘Text as Received’ into One Entity

To read Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG in light of the Hebrew text is also to misunderstand the varying Sitze im Leben of the LXX/OG. The Sitz im Leben of the LXX/OG as produced was as a translation of the Hebrew text; thus, it was possibly read as one side of a metaphorical diglot.³⁶ However, as time went on, the Sitz im Leben of the LXX/OG changed. It became independent from its Vorlage and was viewed as an authoritative, free-standing text (Jobes and Silva 2000: 82).³⁷ In the case of the author of Hebrews’ reading of Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG, the evidence suggests that he would be reading the text with this understanding, i.e., as an independent and authoritative text.³⁸ Furthermore, the verse is understandable in Greek. Thus, there is no need to think that the author would believe that his text is anything less than meaningful and authoritative as it stands. It seems likely that the author of Hebrews read his text as an independent Greek text and understood it without recourse to the Hebrew.

How is the Argument in Hebrews 4.3-5 Affected?

If Heb. 4.3 and 5 (with 3.11) are translated as an open-ended conditional statement, then the tension of the author’s argument is removed. Now the author’s argument can be seen to build upon the latent hope found in the open-ended conditional statement. Psalm 94.11 LXX/OG could have been read by the author as pointing to the opportunity of rest for God’s people if they believe and are faithful to enter into it (Heb. 4.11). With this translation, Heb. 4.3-5 would read,

[A]s he has said, ‘as I swore in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest’ although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, ‘and God rested on the seventh day from all his works.’ And again in this passage he said, ‘if they shall enter into my rest!’ (my translation)

Interpreters sometimes explain the author’s argument by drawing attention to the verbal connection of κατέπαυσεν‎ in both Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG and Gen. 2.2. This is often labeled as an example of gezerah shawah (Koester 2001: 278; Steyn 2011: 186). In this way, scholars argue that the author’s purpose is to focus on the ‘rest’ to the exclusion or diminishment of the warning (Lane 1991: 99; Ellingworth 1993: 244-45). Laansma (1997: 289) states that ‘[t]he oath of Ψ 94,11 [95,11] is turned inside out, so that its positive assumption is the main concern’. Thus, for these interpreters the statement ‘they will never enter into my rest’ is to be actually understood positively as saying a rest is available, and its collocation with Gen. 2.2 associates it with God’s rest. Therefore, not only does the negative statement actually mean something positive, but this ‘rest’ is more fully fleshed out as being God’s rest from his works of creation. The author then is seen to reiterate the negative oath, which is to be read positively, again in Heb. 4.5.

I agree with this conclusion; the verses are to be read positively. However, if there is no negative oath, then we have a more justified argument for this positive reading of the text and understanding of the author’s argument. It is possible that one of the contributing factors to the author’s selection of Ps. 94 was that it clearly portrayed the rest of God as a still future opportunity, ‘if they will enter into my rest’.

In conclusion, the imagery of the Promised Land rest is an image which the author of Hebrews picks up from David’s Ps. 94 in the Greek. He explains that ‘today’ is the day to enter into the rest, and he appears to understand the rest to be available because of the open-ended conditional found in Ps. 94.11 LXX/OG. This article seeks to clarify the author of Hebrews’ argument in 4.3-5 by arguing against the consensus view that a Hebraism was understood by the author in his reading of Ps. 94.11. In contrast to the emphatic negative reading, an open-ended conditional reading helps us to read the author’s argument coherently and to understand how the author can apply this warning to his audience.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Aejmelaeus

Anneli

2007 ‘Translating a Translation: Problems of Modern “Daughter Versions” of the Septuagint’ in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 50; Leuven: Peeters): 241-63.

Attridge

Harold W.

1989 The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

Barclay John

M.G.

1996 Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 bce–117 ce) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

Benetreau

Samuel

1989 L’Épitre aux Hebreux, I (Commentaire Évangélique de la Bible, 10; Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac).

Boyd-Taylor

Cameron

2011 Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies (BTS, 8; Leuven: Peeters).

Buth

Randall

1992 ‘Language Use in the First Century: Spoken Hebrew in a Trilingual Society in the Time of Jesus’, JOTT 5.4: 298-312.

Cockerill

Gareth Lee

2012 The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Coleman

N.D.

1927 ‘Some Noteworthy Uses of εἰ or εἶ in Hellenistic Greek, with a Note on St Mark viii 12’, JTS 28: 159-67.

Conklin

Blane

2011 Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew (LSAWS, 5; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

10.

Conybeare

Frederick C.

William

St. George

Joseph

Stock

2001 A Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

11.

Docherty

Susan E.

2009 The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

12.

Easter

Matthew C.

2014 Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews (SNTSMS, 160; New York: Cambridge University Press).

13.

Ellingworth

Paul

1993 The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

14.

Emerton

John A.

1973 ‘Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the First Century AD and the Language of Jesus’, JTS 24.1: 1-23.

15.

Gheorghita

Radu

2003 The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2.3-4 in Heb 10.37-38 (WUNT, 160; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

16.

Gibson

Jeffrey B.

1996 ‘Another Look at Why Jesus “Sighs Deeply” … in Mark 8.12a’, JTS 47.1: 131-40.

17.

Grässer

Erich

1990 An die Hebräer, I (EKKNT, 17/1; Zürich: Benziger Verlag).

18.

Guthrie

George H.

2007 ‘Hebrews’, in Beale

Gregory K.

Carson

D.A.

(eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic): 919-95.

19.

Howard

David M.

1997 The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

20.

Jobes

Karen H.

Moises

Silva

2000 Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).

21.

Johnson

Luke Timothy

2006 Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox).

22.

Joosten

Jan

2010 ‘Translating the Untranslatable: Septuagint Rendering of Hebrew Idioms’, in Hiebert

Robert J.V.

(ed.), ‘Translation is Required’: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect (SCS, 56; Atlanta: SBL): 59-70.

23.

Karrer

Martin

2006 ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Septuagint’, in Kraus

Wolfgang

Wooden

R. Glenn

(eds.), Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (SCS, 53; Atlanta: SBL): 335-53.

24.

Koester

Craig R.

2001 Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 36; New York: Doubleday).

25.

Kraus

Wolfgang

2008 ‘Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D) – Issues and Challenges: Ps 95 MT/94 LXX as a Test Case’, in Ausloos

, et al. (eds.), Translating a Translation (Leuven: Peeters): 119-31.

26.

Laansma

Jon

1997 ‘I Will Give You Rest’: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT, 2/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

27.

Lane

William L.

1991 Hebrews 1–8 (WBC, 47a; Dallas: Word Books).

28.

Leon

Harry J.

Carolyn

Osiek

1995 The Jews of Ancient Rome (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

29.

McKay

J. Michael

Jr.

2021 ‘An Evaluation of the Supposed Hebraism in Mark 8.12’, The Bible Translator 72.1: 85-98.

30.

McLay

Tim

2003 The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

31.

Moule

Charles F.D.

1975 An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (2nd edn; Cambridge: University Printing House).

32.

Muraoka

Takamitsu

2009 A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters).

33.

O’Brien

Peter T.

2010 The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans).

34.

Ounsworth Richard

Joseph

2012 Joshua Typology in the New Testament (WUNT, 2/328; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

35.

Pietersma

Albert

2001 ‘A New English Translation of the Septuagint’, in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998 (Atlanta: SBL): 217-28.

36.

Pietersma

Alber

2002 ‘A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint’, in Cook

Johann

(ed.), Bible and Computer (Leiden: Brill): 337-64.

37.

Pietersma

Alber

2008a ‘Text-production and Text-reception: Psalm 8 in Greek’, in Karrer

Martin

Kraus

Wolfgang

(eds.), Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 487-501.

38.

Pietersma

Alber

2008b ‘Translating a Translation: With Examples from the Greek Psalter’, in Ausloos

, et al. (eds.), Translating a Translation (Leuven: Peeters): 169-82.

39.

Pietersma

Alber

2010 ‘Beyond Literalism: Interlinearity Revisited’, in Hiebert

Robert J.V.

(ed.), ‘Translation is Required’: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect (SCS, 56; Atlanta: SBL): 3-21.

40.

Pietersma

Albert

Wright

Benjamin G.

2007 A New English Translation of the Septuagint: and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (New York: Oxford University Press).

41.

Rabin

Chaim

1976 ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, in Safrai

Stern

(eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen: Van Gorcum): 1007-39.

42.

Rajak

Tessa

2009 Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

43.

Robertson

Archibald T.

1934 A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th edn; Nashville: Broadman).

44.

Segal

Moses H.

1958 A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

45.

Spicq

Ceslas

1953 L’Épitre aux Hébreux, II (Ebib; Paris: J. Gabalda).

46.

Steyn

Gert Jacobus

2011 A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

47.

Tjen

Anwar

2010 On Conditionals in the Greek Pentateuch: A Study of Translation Syntax (LHBOTS, 515; New York: T&T Clark International).

48.

Vanhoye

Albert

2011 A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews, Roland Meynet (ed.), Translated by Leo Arnold (Series Rhetorica Semitica; Miami, FL: Convivium Press).

49.

Wallace

Daniel B.

1996 Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

50.

Waltke

Bruce K.

O’Connor

Michael Patrick

1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

51.

Wright

Benjamin G.

III

2008 ‘The Septuagint and its Modern Translators’, in Karrer

Martin

Kraus

Wolfgang

(eds.), Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 103-14.

52.

Wright

Benjamin G.

III

2010

‘Moving beyond

Translating a Translation: Reflections on a New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS)’, in Hiebert

Robert J.V.

(ed.), ‘Translation is Required’: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect (SCS, 56; Atlanta: SBL): 23-39.