“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of the μὲν…δὲ Construction in Hebrews 1:7-8
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of the μὲν…δὲ Construction in Hebrews 1:7-8 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 19th, 2016.
The initial post observed a μὲν…δὲ construction linking verses 7 and 8 of Hebrews chapter 1, noting its clear presence in the Greek text. However, a review of ten prominent English translations revealed a consistent absence of the explicit “on the one hand…on the other hand” phrasing for this correlative structure. This observation prompted an inquiry into the underlying grammatical or rhetorical principles informing such translational choices.
The central exegetical issue lies in ascertaining the most appropriate and rhetorically effective rendering of the Greek correlative particles μὲν and δὲ within the context of Hebrews 1:7-8. The discussion aims to elucidate why a direct, literal translation of “on the one hand…on the other hand” is largely eschewed in modern English biblical versions, despite the evident correlative function of these particles in Greek. This necessitates an examination of the grammatical nuances of μὲν…δὲ, an assessment of its rhetorical impact in highlighting a contrast, and an exploration of how best to convey this distinction naturally and accurately in the target language without resorting to potentially unwieldy or unnatural idioms.
καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει· “…” πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· “…” (Hebrews 1:7-8, Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- For Hebrews 1:7-8, there are no substantive textual variants between the Nestle 1904 text (or subsequent critical editions such as NA28/UBS5) and the SBLGNT (2010) that impact the presence or form of the μὲν or δὲ particles in this construction. Any minor differences observed typically pertain to punctuation or orthography, which do not alter the grammatical structure or meaning relevant to this exegetical analysis.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes:
The Greek text of Hebrews 1:7-8, particularly concerning the μὲν…δὲ construction, exhibits stability across major critical editions, including the NA28. No significant variants affecting these correlative particles are attested, affirming the reliability of the established Greek text for this analysis.
Lexically, the particles are understood as follows:
- KITTEL (TDNT): While not explicitly cited in the originating discussion, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) would typically provide extensive insight into the theological and contextual usage of such particles. For μὲν and δὲ, it would likely elaborate on their function in establishing antithesis, distinction, or logical progression, often with significant theological implications depending on the specific passage.
- BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich): The preeminent lexicon for New Testament Greek offers a pertinent entry for μὲν:
BDAG: μέν ❶ marker of correlation ⒜ introducing a concessive clause, followed by another clause with an adversative particle: to be sure … but, one the one hand … on the other hand, though in many cases an equivalent translation will not fit this scheme; rather, the contrast is to be emphasized in the second clause, often with but.
This lexical entry underscores the correlative function of μὲν, indicating that while a literal “on the one hand…on the other hand” is a semantic possibility, it is frequently not the most natural or appropriate translation. Instead, the emphasis often falls on the contrast introduced by the subsequent clause (typically marked by δὲ), which may be rendered simply by “but” or conveyed through the inherent parallelism of the sentence structure. This directly corroborates the observed phenomenon of English translations omitting the explicit “on the one hand.”
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The construction μὲν…δὲ, often found correlating two clauses or ideas, is a quintessential feature of Greek correlative particles. In Hebrews 1:7-8, the structure appears as πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει (‘to the angels he says’) followed by πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν (‘but to the Son’).
Grammatically, μὲν serves primarily to introduce the first element of a correlation, often implying a mild affirmation or setting the stage for what is to follow. Its semantic weight is generally light, and it is frequently left untranslated or implicitly conveyed in English. Its core function is to signal that a second, contrasting or distinguishing element (introduced by δὲ) will ensue. In contrast, δὲ is a more semantically robust particle, characteristically marking an adversative, distinguishing, or continuative relationship. In this context, it unequivocally introduces a contrast with the preceding statement, highlighting the distinct pronouncements made concerning angels versus the Son.
Rhetorically, the author of Hebrews deliberately employs this construction to forge a sharp and emphatic contrast, thereby advancing a fundamental theological tenet: the profound qualitative distinction between angels and the Son. This differentiation is pivotal to the epistle’s argument for the Son’s inherent superiority. By juxtaposing what God declares to angels with what God declares to the Son, the author accentuates the unique and divine status of Christ. A strictly literal rendition of “on the one hand…on the other hand”, while grammatically correlative, might diminish the rhetorical impact of the contrast by sounding overly formal or stylistically cumbersome in contemporary English. The objective is to effectively convey the emphatic distinction without introducing unnatural idioms that might impede the message.
Thus, the observation that English translations generally avoid the explicit “on the one hand” is linguistically justified. As articulated by BDAG, the rhetorical emphasis often resides in the contrast introduced by the second clause. English frequently communicates such distinctions through parallel sentence construction, judicious word choice, or the use of simple adversatives like “but” or “however,” rather than through a heavy-handed correlative phrase that can feel archaic or distracting from the profound theological assertion.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The μὲν…δὲ construction in Hebrews 1:7-8 functions as a clear and rhetorically potent marker of contrast between the status and declarations concerning angels and the Son. While the particles intrinsically denote correlation, modern English translation practice commendably prioritizes natural idiom and rhetorical effectiveness over a rigid, literal rendering of “on the one hand…on the other hand.” The aim is to convey the distinction and the Son’s preeminence perspicuously.
- And concerning the angels he says, “…” but to the Son, “…”
This translation effectively conveys the clear contrast using the adversative “but” and relies on the parallel structure to highlight the distinction, which is a natural and common idiom in English. - For indeed, regarding the angels, he says, “…” yet to the Son, “…”
This option employs “for indeed” to acknowledge the introductory nature of the first statement, and “yet” to introduce a slightly stronger adversative nuance, while maintaining the parallel structure for emphasis. - He says of the angels, “…” while to the Son, “…”
This rendering utilizes “while” to introduce a temporal or concessive distinction, effectively marking the correlation without resorting to an overly explicit correlative phrase, thereby allowing the contrast to emerge naturally within the English syntax.
“`