Traditionally, the translation and edited Greek text of Hebrews 9:17 has been understood as a declarative statement. However, there are strong arguments that this passage, particularly 9:17b, should be understood as a rhetorical question rather than a statement. A more accurate alternative translation might be: "For a covenant is ratified upon death. After all, is a covenant ever in force while the one who made it is alive?"
In almost all editions and translations, Hebrews 9:17b is presented as a declarative statement. This translation has been standard since the sixteenth century and remains the default reading. However, there is reason to consider that 9:17b is better understood as a question. The Greek text of 9:17, διαθήκη2 γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μήποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος, is typically translated, “For a covenant is ratified upon death, since it is never in force while the one who made it is alive.”
The claim that μήποτε followed by an indicative verb (ἰσχύει) is an inconsistent application of normative negation rules in the Koine period requires reevaluation. Understanding 9:17b as a declarative statement does not align with the natural interpretation of μήποτε (or negation with μή) followed by an indicative in first-century AD Greek, nor is it the best explanation of the data given by Hebrews or the New Testament as a whole. Instead, 9:17b can be fully understood as a question in the common Koine practice of negation.
Although it is agreed that Koine Greek, especially in the variety found in the New Testament, does not follow the complex Attic rules for using οὐ and μή, this does not mean there is no internal consistency. Friedrich Blass proposed the rule that “In the κοινή of the New Testament, practically all cases can be brought under one rule, that οὐ negates the indicative, μή negates all other forms, including the infinitive and participle.” This rule generally holds within the limits of the New Testament. The exception that both οὐ and μή can be used with questions in the indicative is recognized by all grammars (e.g., BDF §§426–27; Smyth §§2651, 2676, 2688, 2703).
It is difficult to find μή negating the indicative in normal declarative utterances in the New Testament. The natural sense of μή followed by the present indicative is a question such as, “Is it really that …?” Although contextual factors can shift the interpretation of this formula, there must be clues in the context that indicate the author did not intend the ordinary interrogative sense of the phrase.
Two pieces of external evidence support the interrogative nature of 9:17b. The first is the reading from several patristic sources. Ps.-Oecumenius is clear in this passage, instructing his reader, κατ᾽ἐρώτησιν ἀνάγνωθι, meaning, “Read this as a question.” Similarly, Theophylact also comments, Ἐρωτηματικῶς τοῦτο καὶ ἀνάγνωθι καὶ νόησον, “Both read and understand this as a question.” These two witnesses indicate awareness that by their period, as the use of μή had expanded further, there was potential ambiguity in reading the passage. However, without argument, they affirm that the proper way to read 9:17b is as a question. The testimony of Isidore of Pelusium is less explicit but further indicates that 9:17b is better taken as a question. Although he prefers the variant reading μὴ τότε, he seems to assume that the passage should be taken as a question.
Second, textual variants and their interpretation lean toward reading 9:17b as a question. In manuscripts א* and D*, the text reads μὴ τότε. Although this is typically considered a corruption of μήποτε, it is significant that this variant is universally interpreted as a question. However, unless one assumes μήποτε is already a stereotyped phrase, there is no reason why μὴ τότε should be more interrogative, as it is not τότε but μή that gives the clause its interrogative nature. In other words, if μὴ τότε is interrogative in this context, which is not disputed, then μήποτε should also be interrogative unless there are clear contextual factors against it. While it is not clear how 9:17b was received by the early church, the weight of internal evidence and the patristic commentators on how to read the verse support its interpretation as a question. There is no significant reason, apart from interpretive momentum, to reject the line of evidence above and read 9:17b as a declarative statement.
There are two main arguments from those who comment on this passage in favor of understanding 9:17b as a declarative statement. First, in the Koine period, οὐ and μή became generally confused as the use of μή expanded, leading to general inconsistency. Some also suggest that it is unnecessary to find consistent distinction between μή and οὐ. Second, as a careful and literary author, the writer of Hebrews sought to avoid hiatus as much as possible, causing him to seek an alternative to the phrase ἐπεὶ οὔποτε. Support for this is often adopted from Lucian and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, where ἐπεὶ μήποτε does appear.
Regarding the charge of inconsistency, while it is true that Koine Greek does not show the same nuances in the use of various negations as Attic, there is little evidence in this period for the claim that there is no, or even low, consistency in the use of negation. Instead, the evidence shows that while the use of μή gradually expanded, general consistency in negation use remained. Furthermore, in the text of Hebrews itself, there are no other cases of disputed negation, and the author seems to use the various negative adverbs consistently.
Additionally, the older commentaries and grammars often cited by modern proponents of reading 9:17b as a statement do not support the claims made. Most modern studies do not engage with the possibility of an interrogative in 9:17. At most, they refer to previous conclusions supporting the declarative sentence, with varying degrees of accuracy in reflecting what earlier studies actually said.
Regarding hiatus, the writer of Hebrews indeed takes more care than other New Testament writers in avoiding hiatus, but he is not overly fanatic about it. While it would be tedious to review every case of hiatus in Hebrews, it is valuable to compare the contexts where hiatus is supposedly avoided with the use of μήποτε in 9:17b. Of the nine instances of ἐπεί in Hebrews (2:14; 4:6; 5:2, 11; 6:13; 9:17, 26; 10:2; 11:11), five of them are without hiatus (5:2, 11; 6:13; 9:17; 11:11). This indicates that the author is not overly concerned with hiatus following ἐπεί and therefore does not need to adjust his grammar to avoid it.
The willingness to accept hiatus involving these clusters of sounds, especially the one avoided in 9:17b, such as ἐπεὶ οὖν (2:14, 4:6) and especially ἐπεὶ οὐκ (10:2), suggests that the author is not bound by the claimed avoidance of hiatus. Therefore, it is unnecessary to look for a stereotyped phrase from an author writing at a later point in the expansion of μή in Greek.
Conclusion
While there is scholarly momentum behind understanding Hebrews 9:17b as a declarative statement, this reading does not align with the data from Hebrews itself. Furthermore, because the sources often cited as supporting the interpretation of Hebrews 9:17b as a statement do not all actually support the claim, this consensus, to the extent it is considered, stands on shaky ground. There is no clear reason in Hebrews or the wider New Testament to understand μήποτε in 9:17b as a declarative phrase. Instead, it is better understood as part of a rhetorical question that helps clarify the argument being made in Hebrews 9:15–17.
What's important?
As a Christian and al-Kitāb Student, these findings offer important insights into understanding sacred texts and theological teachings in the New Testament. By understanding that Hebrews 9:17b is best read as a rhetorical question rather than a declarative statement, we can deepen our understanding of the theological meaning of the new covenant ratified through the death of Christ. This reading confirms that the new covenant cannot be in effect while its creator is still alive, underscoring the depth of Jesus' sacrifice as guarantor of the covenant. Additionally, these findings underscore the importance of the study of original languages and historical context for accurate interpretation, which helps us better understand and appreciate the Bible's message with greater depth and strengthens our Christian faith.
Source:
Dadas, C.E., 2011. Writing civic spaces: A theory of civic rhetorics in a digital age (Doctoral dissertation, Miami University).
Daniel, A.G., 2021. The Translator’s Tell: Translation Technique, Verbal Syntax, and the Myth of Old Greek Daniel’s Alternate Semitic Vorlage. Journal of Biblical Literature, 140(4), pp.723-749.
Stevens, D., 2018. Is It Valid? A Case for the Repunctuation of Hebrews 9: 17. Journal of Biblical Literature, 137(4), pp.1019-1025.
Comments