Translation commentary on Hebrews 10:1

Jewish is implied, as in verse 11. This term is not historically correct, since Israelites were not called “Jews” until after the exile, while the first five books of the Bible are set in an earlier period. However, the writer is not concerned with the distinction between the various periods of Old Testament history. Nor are most modern readers concerned, for whom “Jews” are a recognizable group, whereas “Israelites” or “Hebrews” are not. Jewish is therefore widely used in common language translations. See comment on 8.4.

The phrase The Jewish Law may be rendered as “The Law given to the Jews” or “The Law for the Jews.” Note, however, that in many languages it may be necessary to employ a plural form, namely, “The laws given to the Jews.”

As a comparison with Revised Standard Version shows, Good News Translation reverses the original order of not a full and faithful model and only a faint outline. This change makes the verse easier to understand, by putting the more important negative statement first. The translator should consider whether or not this is natural and effective in his own language.

In contrasting the full and faithful model and the faint outline, the writer returns to the contrast expressed in partly different words in 8.5 between the pattern and the shadow (also Col 2.17). For model, King James Version uses “image,” which is appropriate in Mark 12.16 and Colossians 1.15, but is misleading here; the writer does not mean “the image of an original” but the original itself, the reality itself, of which the Old Testament worship is only a “shadow.”

Not a full and faithful model has a textual problem. For the Greek, “not the true form,” one early manuscript has “and the true form,” and others have different readings. Both old and modern translations choose the same text as Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version.

The expression for the real things is as general in meaning in the Greek as its equivalent is in English; all the stylistic emphasis falls on “true form.”

The phrase the real things can be almost completely obscure, especially in a literal translation in which the equivalent of things may indicate merely objects. It would appear that the real things must in some way be related to the good things to come, but in view of what has been said about what is real in the previous two chapters, the real things may relate to “that which exists in heaven.”

Is not a full and faithful model of the real things may be expressed as “does not look just like the real things.”

The good things were to come, from the point of view of the Law, but have now already come, from the point of view of the writer (see 9.11). For this reason Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch‘s “a weak indication of what God wanted to do for men in the future” is preferable to Moffatt‘s “a mere shadow of the bliss that is to be” or Barclay‘s “no more than a shadow of the good things which are to come.” Phillips has “a dim outline of the benefits Christ would bring,” and New English Bible “the good things which were to come.” These renderings are similar to that of GECL.

It may be difficult to translate the phrase a faint outline of the good things to come. In some languages the equivalent may be “words which are difficult to understand about the things that are to come,” “only some few words about the things that are to come,” “only a picture which is difficult to see clearly, which shows those good things that are to come,” or “… those good things in the future.”

On sacrifices, see comments on 5.1; 7.27.

The passive are offered is like the English impersonal pronoun “they,” since it does not specify who does the offering; it means quite generally “people offered.” The writer is now less concerned with the High Priest than with the sacrifice. The same sacrifices are offered may be expressed in some languages as “The same sacrifices happen” or “… occur.”

The writer is more interested in Old Testament texts on worship than with what was happening in the Jerusalem Temple in his own lifetime. The writer is unlikely to have meant that sacrifices would go on being offered forever in the Temple (see 8.13; 9.8), but rather “repeatedly” or “indefinitely” (see Traduction œcuménique de la Bible; similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). This is true whether or not the Jerusalem Temple was still in use when Hebrews was written. On this matter scholars disagree. The New English Bible text solves this problem by taking the Greek for forever (“continually”) with make perfect, thereby translating “can never bring the worshippers to perfection for all time.” However, this translation, and the New English Bible footnote “bring to perfection the worshippers who come continually,” go against the natural flow of the Greek sentence.

It may be possible to indicate in an effective and idiomatic way the meaning of forever, year after year as “day after day, year after year, always.” Instead of are offered forever, one may use a negative expression, for example, “never cease,” and then add “day after day and year after year.”

Revised Standard Version‘s “never” is strongly emphasized. Good News Translation brings this out by turning the negative statement “it can never … make perfect…” into a rhetorical question, How can the Law … make perfect…? Translators must decide how far it is natural to follow this example in their own languages.

Instead of Revised Standard Version‘s “it [that is, the Law] can never,” many good manuscripts have “they can never,” referring to “sacrifices” or to those who offer them, leaving “the Law” without further explanation. Translations and commentators generally choose the text followed by Revised Standard Version, but one or two mention the alternative in a note.

On make perfect, see comments on 2.10.

On come to God or “draw near” (Revised Standard Version), see comments on 4.16.

It may be difficult to speak of “the Law making something perfect,” for in many languages the Law is not regarded as being an agent. However, one can often say “How can the people who come to God become perfect by following the laws which tell about these sacrifices?” or “… the laws which indicate how sacrifices are to be performed?”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Hebrews 10:37 – 10:38

As the scripture says is implied. Some such phrase is necessary, even when this passage is read aloud, to show that it includes a quotation from the Old Testament. The first line of the quotation in Good News Translation comes from Isaiah 26.20, and the rest from Habakkuk 2.3-4, part of which is also quoted in Romans 1.17 and Galatians 3.11. As usual, the writer quotes rather freely from the Septuagint. Often one cannot translate as the scripture says literally, since Scriptures do not “speak.” One can, however, employ an expression such as “as one may read in the Scriptures” or “according to the words of the holy writings.”

Just a little while longer may be expressed as “In a very short time,” “Not long from now,” or even “Soon.”

The keywords, for Hebrews as for Paul, are righteous (see 11.4, 7, 33; 12.11, 23, where this or related Greek words are used) and “faith” (Good News Translation believe). The meaning of the text as quoted here must be confused neither with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Habakkuk, nor with the meaning which Paul gives to the text. Habakkuk’s message was that in the time of crisis which was coming, anyone who was “righteous,” that is, who did God’s will as expressed in the Law, would survive. For Paul the meaning is very different: those who have the kind of “righteousness,” or “being right with God,” which comes from relying on God through faith in Christ, not from obeying the letter of the Law, will experience what life really is.

The writer of Hebrews emphasizes the future aspect of the text by quoting Habakkuk 2.3, as well as verse 4.

He who is coming will come: the writer emphasizes this clause by adding a definite article. It is literally “the one who is coming.” It may seem odd and repetitious to say this. It may be better, therefore, to render this clause as “the one who is coming will arrive.”

He will not delay may be rendered as “he will not be long in coming.”

The translation of verse 38a is complicated by a textual problem. Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, and most translations follow the UBS Greek text. Other manuscripts have “the righteous by faith,” sometimes with “in me” added. These texts are influenced by the text of the Septuagint, and possibly by Paul, and are not likely to be correct.

My righteous people is literally “My righteous (one),” grammatically singular, as in most translations except Good News Translation and Bijbel in Gewone Taal. However, any of them later in the sentence shows that the meaning is “anyone who has a right relationship with me,” and Good News Bible brings this out. The writer of Hebrews emphasizes at various points his concern for each one of his readers, but always addresses them as a group; he does not mention individuals by name. Good News Bible means “my righteous nation.” However, the transition from My righteous people (singular) to any of them (plural) and then back to the singular him may be awkward in some languages. If so, it may be best to use plural expressions throughout, since the author is certainly referring to more than one righteous individual.

The emphasis of the expression My righteous people is that these are people who do God’s will. In a sense, therefore, My righteous people implies “My people who do what I want them to do.”

However is literally “but” (Revised Standard Version), and but in the next line is literally “and,” as in Revised Standard Version. The word translated however is less emphatic than “however” in English. The word translated “and” in Revised Standard Version may in some contexts indicate a contrast, like the English but. It is necessary to see where contrasts are indicated or suggested in this passage. The general direction of the argument suggests that there is no contrast between Christ’s coming, and God’s people believing and living; but that there is a contrast between believing and living on the one hand, and turning back on the other hand. So Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch translates “The person who trusts me and remains true to me can stand before me and will live. But the person who loses his courage, I will have nothing to do with him” (similarly Bijbel in Gewone Taal, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

It is sometimes necessary to have some complement to a verb such as will believe. The tendency for some translators is to expand will believe to “will believe the Good News.” But the correct interpretation of will believe involves trusting in God, and therefore will believe may be rendered as “will trust me.”

Since and live indicates the result of trusting, it may be possible to render and live as “and so live.”

The Translator’s New Testament note indicates that “faith” is stressed. This is not obvious from the form of the Greek sentence, but it is clear from the wider context (verse 39 and chapter 11). Translator’s New Testament accordingly translates “It is by faith that my righteous one shall live.”

For the writer of Hebrews, though not in Habakkuk, the last part of verse 38 is spoken by God. As a comparison with Revised Standard Version shows, any of them is implied. In English any may be either singular or plural, and the last part of this verse may very well be rendered as “if any turn back, I will not be pleased with them.” Certainly the implication is for more than one person being likely to turn back. The Greek verb for turns is singular, but refers to any one of a group of people, so a plural verb is often clearer in translation.

The metaphor of turns back may be related to thinking of the Christian life as “the Way” (see Acts 9.2); or it may mean “draws back” in fear, “shrinks back” (New English Bible), with a meaning similar to the term for “looking back” in Luke 9.62. The meaning “draw back from involvement in the world” has been suggested but does not seem to fit in with the message of the letter as a whole.

In some languages the idea of “turning back” would not be a natural figure of speech to describe giving up one’s faith. “To turn back” may simply be equivalent to “turning around.” Therefore if any of them turns back may be rendered as “if any refuse to follow me further,” “if any give up trusting in me,” or “if any no longer trust me.”

Good News Translation is right to understand the literal “my soul” (Revised Standard Version) as equivalent to I, but the Greek for I will not be pleased with him is the climax of the quotation. The language is similar to that of Luke 2.14b (peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased!). The thought of God being “pleased” with people is closely linked with the idea of his “choosing” them for particular tasks (see 10.6, 8).

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Hebrews 11:36

Most translations, except Good News Translation and perhaps Bible en français courant, make this verse refer to a single group of people who suffer two types of punishment: (a) mocking and whipping, which last for a short time; and (b) being chained and imprisoned, which are worse because they last for a longer period. Barclay makes this explicit: “Some had to face mockery and the lash, and the even worse fate of chains and imprisonment”; similarly New English Bible “Others, again, had to face jeers and flogging, even fetters and prison bars.” However, the noun translated mocked may itself suggest torture, as in 2 Maccabees 7.7, where New English Bible has “brutality.” If this is so, the verse as a whole will mean “Others, again, were tortured and whipped, and tied up and put in prison as well.”

Put in chains and taken off to prison should not be taken to mean that they were chained only while on their way to prison. It was common to chain people while in prison (for example, Acts 28.20 and Col 4.18) or on trial (Acts 26.29).

The passive expressions in this verse may be readily changed into active ones by saying “People mocked and whipped some of those who trusted God, and others they put in chains and kept in prison.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Hebrews 13:1

For other reminders of Christian love, see 10.24, 32-34. It is interesting to compare Good News Translation with Revised Standard Version‘s more literal translation. Good News Bible is much longer than RSV, but much closer to the meaning of the text. It uses a verb instead of the noun “brotherly love,” since action by the readers is involved. The tense of the Greek verb for “remain” (Revised Standard Version “continue”) shows that continuous action is called for, hence keep on loving.

As Christian brothers: the traditional translation “brotherly love” (Revised Standard Version) does not show what was new and special about relationships within the first Christian communities. At that time it was rare for the word “brother” to be used in speaking of those who were not members of the same family, or at least of the same ethnic group. In the Old Testament, “brother” in its widest sense meant “fellow-Israelite” (Lev 19.17-18; Acts 13.26). Christians thought of themselves as members of the same family, whether or not they were physically related. So “brotherly love” is not love which is merely like the love of brothers (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), but the love of those who were truly, though not physically, related in the Christian “brotherhood” (1 Peter 2.17; 5.9). In modern English, “brother” is used so loosely in a weak figurative sense that some translations even avoid the word completely; Barclay “Christians must never stop loving their fellow-Christians.” As Christian brothers may be misinterpreted to mean “as though they were Christian brothers.” The phrase may need to be made more specific in the form of a clause; for example, “as Christian brothers should love one another.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Hebrews 2:1

That is why (New American Bible “In view of this”; Translator’s New Testament “For this reason”; New English Bible, Bijbel in Gewone Taal “Thus”; Traduction œcuménique de la Bible “It follows”): these words connect verses 1-4 with the whole argument of chapter 1. We includes both the author and his readers.

It may be necessary in some instances to make somewhat more specific the transitional reference in the expression That is why or “In view of this” or “For this reason.” In some instance a clause may be necessary, for example, “In view of what God has done” or “Because all this is true.”

All the more firmly is a very strong comparative which raises the question “More firmly than what?” There are three possibilities: (a) “More firmly than we are doing now” (compare Jerusalem Bible “more attentively than before”). This is probably what the word means in 13.19, but nothing in the context supports this meaning here. This meaning would be more likely if the text had “you” instead of we. (b) “More firmly than we should do if the Christian message had been given merely by angels” fits the context well, and is the basis for Good News Translation and many other translations. (c) It is also possible to translate “pay particular attention,” the comparative being used for additional emphasis. This is the basis of Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch‘s “Therefore must we first hold firm…” and perhaps Bijbel in Gewone Taal‘s “… (pay) more than usual attention.” On the whole, however, meaning (b) is to be preferred.

Hold on combines the ideas of paying close attention to something and putting it into practice; see Acts 8.6, 10; 16.14.

It may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to speak of “holding on more firmly to truth,” since in some languages truth is something one does not “hold onto.” It is, however, often possible to speak of “paying close attention to truth” or idiomatically “to listen with one’s heart to the truth.” In other instances, the concept of holding onto the truth must be expressed in terms of belief, for example, “we must believe even more the truths.”

The truths we have heard (truths is implied): the writer never uses the Greek word for “Good News” or “Gospel,” but this phrase is probably his way of saying the same thing. The tense of the verb indicates that the truths have been heard at a particular point in time, but since the time is not stated, Knox‘s “which have now come to our hearing” is too specific.

Many languages do not use a noun for expressing the concept of truth. Rather, they use some type of qualifying adjective, so that the truths we have heard may be expressed as “that which we have heard which is true” or “the true words which we have heard.” In some instances “truth” must be expressed in terms of that in which one may have confidence: “that which we have heard which can be believed” or “… which can be trusted.”

So that we will not be carried away is not a statement about what will or will not happen. So that means “in order that,” expressing purpose. Negative purpose must sometimes be expressed in terms of a condition; for example, “if we do that, we will not be….” In some instances the purpose must be very plainly indicated as “the reason for our doing this is so that we will not be….”

Be carried away translates a word which is used only once in the New Testament. It is the negative of what hold on has expressed positively (see Prov 3.21 where the Septuagint uses the same verb). In secular Greek it is sometimes used to describe a ship drifting away; thus Barclay says “Otherwise, we may well be like a ship which drifts past the harbour to shipwreck.”

A literal rendering of be carried away can be quite misleading since it might suggest that someone actually carried persons away. It may therefore be better to use an expression such as “pass by” or “drift by” (if the figurative language of the motion of a ship can be implied). In some cases the equivalent of be carried away may be expressed in terms of failure to reach one’s intended destination; for example, “so as not to arrive at one’s goal.”

Verses 2-4 form a single sentence in Greek. They present a comparison between the Old Testament Law and the Christian message, followed by two conclusions. This structure may be outlined as follows:

A. The Old Testament Law
1. The Law, given through angels, was true (verse 2a)
2. As a result, acts of disobedience were punished (verse 2b)
B. The Christian message of salvation
1. was announced by the Lord (verse 3b)
2. was attested by witnesses (verse 3c)
3. was confirmed by miracles and wonders by the Holy Spirit (verse 4)
• therefore
C. The Christian message is more important than the Old Testament Law (implied)
• therefore
D. Conclusion: we cannot be saved if we ignore the Christian message (verse 3a)

Notice that the logical order is not the same as the grammatical order, which is followed by most translations, including Good News Translation. The difficulty in following the logical order is the length and subdivisions of point B (verses 3b-4). The logical solution would be to transfer verse 3a (point D: How, then, shall we escape…?) to the end of verse 4. However, it is doubtful whether the author intended to adopt a strictly logical presentation. He is more concerned to persuade than to prove a point. Therefore in this passage the translator should take careful note of the underlying logical structure, though he need not necessarily follow it in translation. But he should be ready, as a matter of principle, to divide long sentences, and also to leave logical relations unexpressed if it is natural to do so in his language.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Hebrews 3:17

In order to anticipate more clearly the response to the rhetorical question in verse 17, it may be useful to employ “Who were the people with whom God was angry for forty years?” There are, however, serious difficulties involved in the rhetorical questions found in verses 16, 17, and 18, for obviously the writer is not asking for information but is making emphatic statements by means of these rhetorical questions. In languages which do not employ such rhetorical questions, it may be necessary to use emphatic statements. For example, verse 17 may be rendered as “For forty years God was indeed angry with the people who sinned and who fell down dead in the desert.” Similar adaptations may be made in verses 16 and 18.

In quoting Psalm 95 in verses 9-10 (see discussion), the writer has separated for forty years from I was angry. Now, as he comments on the psalm, he brings them together and adds in support a quotation from Numbers 14.29. This shows that he has in mind not only Psalm 95 but also the Old Testament story to which it refers.

Who fell down dead brings out the meaning more clearly than Revised Standard Version‘s literal translation “whose bodies fell.” “Fall” does not mean merely “fall over”; destruction or death is implied, as in King James Version‘s “whose carcasses fell.” On desert, see discussion on Heb. 3.8.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Hebrews 6:1 – 6:2

Let us go forward is not a request for permission but an appeal for action. “Moving forward” or “going forward” may not necessarily suggest progress toward any particular goal. Therefore it may be important to say “Let us go to the goal of mature teaching.”

Mature teaching does not mean the teaching that is given by mature people, but the teaching which is appropriate for those who are mature, who are “adults in their faith,” or “like grownups as far as believing is concerned.”

Most translations and commentaries agree with Good News Translation‘s leave behind, but the Greek may also mean “omit,” “pass over” (Bijbel in Gewone Taal). Knox has “We must leave on one side, then, all discussion of our first lessons in Christ, and pass on to our full growth.” The difference of meaning is not great, but the translation should in any case avoid the idea that the readers are being asked to throw away the elementary teaching they had received. The writer means that he will not in this letter repeat the elementary teaching, and does not wish his readers to keep going over the same ground themselves. See verses 1b-2 and also comments on 7.11.

In order to avoid wrong connotations in the expression leave behind, it may be necessary to employ a negative equivalent; for example, “and not keep repeating” or “and not just stay where we are.”

This verse suggests that even the milk mentioned in 5.12 consists of distinctively Christian teaching (Revised Standard Version “the elementary doctrine of Christ”). Otherwise this verse overlaps considerably in meaning with the first lessons of God’s message in 5.12. The Christian message is literally “the word of Christ.” “Word,” probably in contrast to 5.13, takes on the meaning of “message,” that is, the Christian “Good News.” It is a message about Christ rather than a message from Christ. The problem is that the examples of “elementary doctrines of Christ” given in 6.2 have nothing specifically Christian about them. For example, as the TEV footnote shows, the word for “baptisms” in the plural may not refer to Christian baptism, which took place once for all, but to Jewish purification ceremonies. The “elementary doctrines” are unlikely to be the teaching of Jesus during his earthly life. Perhaps “Christ” in this context has the wider meaning “Messiah,” so that the “elementary teaching about the Messiah” could be partly, perhaps even entirely, Jewish teaching, which the readers would have received before they became Christian.

The first lessons may be expressed as “what we were first taught” or “what we first learned.” But if the translation “what we first learned” is combined with the Christian message, it may be necessary to restructure the relationship by saying “what we first learned about Christ.” The meaning of message is, of course, combined in the expression “what we first learned.”

In addition to the general problems discussed in the introduction to this section, these verses contain small problems of text and punctuation of the Greek, though the general sense is clear.

For the problem of punctuation, see the punctuation note in the UBS Greek text. The question is how to arrange the six items which the readers are told they should not lay again. These verses use two Greek words for “and,” one of which may indicate a closer link than the other. If this clue is followed, the grouping would be as follows:

turning away from dead works
and faith in God

baptisms and the laying on of hands and the resurrection of the dead
and the eternal judgment.

However, it is much safer to follow the meaning of the various expressions rather than rely on a small difference in the Greek. If the meaning is followed, the grouping is clearly:

turning away from dead works, and faith in God
baptisms and the laying on of hands
the resurrection of the dead and the eternal judgment.

The first pair refers to the past, the second perhaps more to worship in the present, and the third to the future.

Most translations keep the metaphor of lay … the foundation, but Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch gives the meaning in a nonfigurative way: “So we do not want to deal once more with elementary concepts”; Translator’s New Testament has “We have already taught you the fundamental things and we need not do it again.” There are not many languages in which one can keep the figurative expression “laying again a foundation” (Revised Standard Version), since a “foundation” normally has nothing to do with “elementary teaching” or “basic facts.” It is possible to render We should not lay again the foundation as “We should not again talk about the first lessons,” “… what you must first learn,” or “… what you first had to learn.”

Turning away is a figure of speech for what is traditionally translated “repentance,” a complete change of mind and direction in life. However, in current English the word “repentance” is little used outside church circles, and “repentance from” something (rather than “for” past sins) is less natural than turning away from. The translation should, however, make it clear that the turning away is both inward and outward; that is, it affects both thought and action.

The foundation mentioned in verse 1b is explained as consisting of two elements, namely, turning away from useless works and believing in God. If foundation is translated as “first lessons” or “initial teaching,” then the teaching consists of the same two elements; in other words, repentance and faith.

The phrase turning away from may be expressed as “no longer performing,” “no longer being involved in,” or “refusing to do any longer.”

“Dead works” may be (a) useless works (so Bible en français courant), actions, or a way of life which does not win God’s favor; or (b) “a life which leads to death” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “conduct which leads to death”; similarly Translator’s New Testament, Bijbel in Gewone Taal, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Phillips, Barclay). 9.14 suggests that the “dead works” are not only useless, but that they make someone unclean, as contact with a dead body would do.

Useless works may be expressed as “what one does which does no good” or “the way in which one lives which is of no help.” If, however, one adopts the meaning of “behavior which leads to death,” it may be possible to speak of “the way in which one lives which results in death” or “… which causes one’s death.” This death, however, is essentially a spiritual death, and therefore it may be possible to speak of “which causes death to one’s spirit.”

Revised Standard Version‘s “faith toward God” is awkward in English but shows that it is the opposite of turning away from “dead works.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “and turning to God,” implying trust in or reliance on him. Believing in God is the second part of the foundation or “first lessons.” It may be necessary to render believing in God as “how we should believe in God” or “what trusting in God really means.”

A textual problem affects the word translated teaching. Most manuscripts, like the UBS Greek text, have “of teaching,” but two early manuscripts do not have the form corresponding to “of.” This would mean that the “foundations” and the “teaching” were the same. It would probably also suggest that the “teaching” is not just about baptisms, but about the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal judgment as well. Good News Translation, like Revised Standard Version and most translations, agrees with the UBS Greek New Testament.

Good News Translation‘s the before teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, etc. is not in the Greek. It is added because the is natural in English, where a noun such as teaching is qualified by a phrase such as about baptisms, and partly in order to suggest that these subjects are already familiar to the readers. However, this is the first time that these matters have been mentioned in this passage. Except for believing in God (compare 4.2), this is also the first time these doctrines have been mentioned in the whole letter. Therefore there is some advantage in treating them all as “new information.” This would be done by omitting the in English.

Teaching is probably not only about baptism (King James Version “the doctrine of baptisms”) but also about laying on of hands, as well as about resurrection and judgment. Since the teaching is also a part of the foundation, it may be necessary to make this clear: “this foundation involves the teaching about…” or “these first lessons include teaching about….”

For many readers, the plural baptisms is puzzling, since in the church today there is only one rite which is called baptism, and people are not usually baptized more than once. Knox‘s “different kinds of baptism” and Translator’s New Testament‘s “various baptisms” (see also Translator’s New Testament‘s Translational Note) show the reader that there is a problem but do not give him the information he needs to solve it. Biblia Dios Habla Hoy and Phillips avoid the problem by translating “baptism.” This, though clear, is perhaps not enough to give the meaning without a note. (See Note (1) on page 109 [footnote in HBKENG for 6.1a], and compare 10.22.) The plural baptisms may refer simply to multiple events of people being baptized. If it is understood in this collective sense, the translation “baptism” could be used, since the phrase “teaching about baptism” would certainly imply a number of persons being baptized. However, if the plural designates various purification ceremonies (see the footnote in TEV, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), it would be possible to give the meaning of “rituals for purifying people.”

The laying on of hands is a traditional phrase still used by most modern translations. Biblia Dios Habla Hoy has the rather heavy phrase “the ceremony of laying the hands on believers,” which makes it clear that the laying on of hands is linked with baptism, not, as elsewhere in the New Testament, with ordination or healing. If there is any danger that the phrase could be wrongly understood as meaning ordination, the translator should consider giving the correct information in a footnote or glossary note. More simply, “in baptism” could be added in the text of the translation.

A literal translation of the laying on of hands could be badly misinterpreted, since in some languages this is a common expression for arresting someone. It may therefore be necessary to use some such qualification as “ceremony involving laying on of hands,” or even “ceremony of blessing by putting hands on someone,” or “… by putting hands on believers.”

Resurrection is literally “rising again,” but the action of God is implied. Bible en français courant has a glossary note. It may be necessary to repeat a reference to teaching when mentioning the resurrection of the dead. Because the teaching involves a whole series of elements, this part of verse 2 may be introduced as “also teaching about the fact that the dead will rise,” “… the dead will come back to life,” or “… will live again.”

The word translated judgment may refer either to the process of judging or to the verdict itself. In this verse it is clearly the verdict which is eternal in the sense of remaining valid forever. Knox has “our sentence in eternity”; “the verdict for eternity” would also be possible. In 10.27 and elsewhere in the New Testament, stress is laid on the negative aspect of judgment as condemnation, but this is not the case here or in 9.14.

The phrase the eternal judgment may require considerable expansion if the essential components of meaning are to be clearly indicated. It may even be necessary to specify that this is also part of the teaching; for example, “the teaching about how God will pass judgment on people and how his verdict will always remain” or “the teaching how God’s judgment of people will always remain just that way.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Hebrews 7:15

In the Greek, verses 14 and 15 are linked by the use of words of similar meaning, “was descended” and “arose,” and similar form, “evident” and “(even) more evident.” However, the similarity of words covers a change in the argument: it is well known to everyone that Jesus was a member of the tribe of Judah (verse 14), but only Christians, and well instructed Christians at that, would be able to recognize in him a different priest … like Melchizedek.

New English Bible well expresses the new step in the thought: “The argument becomes still clearer, if the new priest who arises is one like Melchizedek….” Unlike the if of verse 11, this condition is fulfilled: “if, as is the case.” Revised Standard Version tries to express this by “when,” implying “when we remember that another priest has arisen.”

The clause The matter becomes even plainer may be rendered as “Now we can understand even more clearly,” “What I have been talking about now becomes clearer,” or “You can now understand better what I have been talking about.”

What becomes even plainer? Is it (a) the provisional nature of the old priesthood; (b) the change in the law; (c) both; or (d) the strength of the argument that there is really no comparison between Jesus and the levitical priests? (d) seems to fit in well with an increase of emotion which is felt from this point on. “The power of an indestructible life,” for example, is emotionally stronger than “it is testified that he lives” in verse 8, Revised Standard Version. Most translations agree with Good News Translation in using some such general phrase as The matter; Bijbel in Gewone Taal links it with the rest of the sentence: “It becomes much clearer still when we see that another priest appeared….” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch boldly but effectively repeats material from verse 11, just as 6.3 in Good News Translation repeats 6.1: “The levitical priesthood could not lead men to the goal. This becomes fully clear in that God has established another priest of the (same) kind (as) Melchizedek.”

On different, see verses 11, 13. A different kind of priest, as in verse 11, would not be too strong. New English Bible has “the new priest.” A different priest has appeared may be rendered as “a different kind of priest exists.”

Like Melchizedek does not translate the same expression in the Greek as does like the Son of God in verse 3, but the meaning is the same.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .