# Studying Hebrews, question on 3:16,17



## God'sElectSaint (Jun 5, 2015)

Okay I found this one interesting comparing translations, here's the AV: "Heb 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 
Heb 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?"
And here's the ASV1901: "Heb 3:16 For who, when they heard, did provoke? nay, did not all they that came out of Egypt by Moses? 
Heb 3:17 And with whom was he displeased forty years? was it not with them that sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?"
I am not an expert in Greek to determine which translation is more correct but I do notice they are quite different here and I don't believe there is a textual variant here. The Authorized Version makes more sense to me with the point the author of Hebrews is trying to convey but is it a correct translation? Just looking for a little clarity here. Was it "some" or was it "all"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 5, 2015)

There is a translational issue that must be resolved, either to begin at v16 and continue with queries, with rhetorical questions answered by the same device; or to treat v16 as statements.

Is "tis" in v16 the same as "tis" in v17, and again v18? In v16, the KJV translators render it an indefinite pronoun, "some." In vv17&18, they make it the interrogative pronoun "who/whom." The forms are identical. Later translations use the query all the way through.

Interpretively, is the author painfully distinguishing in v16 between two parts of Israel in the wilderness: the part who rebelled, and those who did not? Or is he lumping "that generation" (cf. v10; and Ps.95:10)?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Jun 5, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> There is a translational issue that must be resolved, either to begin at v16 and continue with queries, with rhetorical questions answered by the same device; or to treat v16 as statements.
> 
> Is "tis" in v16 the same as "tis" in v17, and again v18? In v16, the KJV translators render it an indefinite pronoun, "some." In vv17&18, they make it the interrogative pronoun "who/whom." The forms are identical. Later translations use the query all the way through.
> 
> Interpretively, is the author painfully distinguishing in v16 between two parts of Israel in the wilderness: the part who rebelled, and those who did not? Or is he lumping "that generation" (cf. v10; and Ps.95:10)?



Rev.Buchanan do you think the later translations are more correct? Like I said my Greek is extremely novice and just wanted to know which one is probably more correct. Or could both translations be justifiable? Sorry i think your comment just went a little over my head Rev.Buchanan could you simplify a little?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 5, 2015)

Of course both translations have each its own justification. Rational and coherent sense can be made of either. I'm inclined to accept the later. And it seems to be the large consensus opinion today.

But I don't approve of counting noses to determine truth or probability. Each of Christ's redeemed has been given "ears to hear" the Voice of his good Shepherd. Some measure of the interpretive duty always falls to the individual sheep, regardless of how the words and sense are conveyed and registered to the mind.

Acknowledging we live in a world of defects makes us more dependent on faith to sustain us. And paradoxically, such faith improves both our subjective certainty in God who upholds us, and our actual sureness of step in navigating our difficult path using his Word as the lamp for our guide.

The toddler who doesn't trust his own balance and watches his own feet is more likely to end up on his backside; than the 6yr old running carelessly and pell-mell through the backwoods lot. Some travelers feel paralyzed without a talking GPS telling them where to put each footfall. Others traverse unfamiliar ground deftly, using countless clues combined mysteriously to lead them confidently--though perhaps not with _perfect, robotic precision_--and accurately to their true destination.

The later translations--including the NKJ--ring true to me, and yield a theologically harmonious sound. Neither is the ancient rendering discordant; good use was and still is made of it.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Jun 5, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Of course both translations have each its own justification. Rational and coherent sense can be made of either. I'm inclined to accept the later. And it seems to be the large consensus opinion today.
> 
> But I don't approve of counting noses to determine truth or probability. Each of Christ's redeemed has been given "ears to hear" the Voice of his good Shepherd. Some measure of the interpretive duty always falls to the individual sheep, regardless of how the words and sense are conveyed and registered to the mind.
> 
> ...



Thanks that makes sense! Was just trying to get some clarity on it I have been in depthly studying Hebrews and since I don't know much Greek I rely on a diversity of English translations usually (KJV& NASB)I can see the merit of both of them. Appreciate your insights Rev.Buchanan always very interesting and a benefit to me. You have a way of being blunt and rational. God Bless ya brother.


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> and I don't believe there is a textual variant here.



Not exactly. The different interpretations derive from diverging accents in the Greek. As these accents were added later it is likely that they in turn derive from the interpretation given to the words.

The question is whether the author intended to speak specifically or generally. To be precise, Joshua and Caleb, as well as those under twenty years of age, were not included in the judgment. Was it part of the author's aim to emphasise wholesale judgment, or was he leaving room for mercy as a further incentive to exercise faith?

John Owen comments: "The apostle adds expressly a limitation, with respect to the persons who heard and provoked: 'Howbeit not all.' In his preceding discourse he had expressed the sin and punishment of the people indefinitely, so as at first view to include the whole generation in the wilderness, without exception of any. Here, out of the story, he puts in an exception of some even of them who came up out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses... Now, the reason why the apostle expresseth this limitation of his former general assertion is, that he might enforce his exhortation with the example of them who believed and obeyed the voice of God, and who thereon both enjoyed the promises and entered into the rest of God; so that he takes his argument not only from the severity of God, — which at first view seems only to be represented in his instance and example, — but also from his faithfulness and grace, which are included therein."


----------

