# Translation of Hebrews 10:1-2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek\ **Created:** [October 29, 2026, 10:57am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/translation-of-hebrews-10-1-2/31309 "2026-10-29T10:57:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/mitch/32/222_2.png) [@Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/u/Mitch)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2026, 10:57am UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/translation-of-hebrews-10-1-2/31309/1 "2026-10-29T10:57:04Z")
Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς οὐδέποτε δύνανται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι· ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι, διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἔτι συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας ἅπαξ κεκαθαρισμένους; After wrestling with this for some time I’ve come up with the following translation: The law, being only a shadow of the coming good things and not the actual image of them, can never perfect those who continually draw near offering the same sacrifices every year. For isn’t it the case that such offerings would have ceased for the reason that those ministering them, having been definitively cleansed, would no longer have consciousness of sin? Here’s how I break things down: Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων (or phps. “possessing the quality of”) ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα (lit. “the image itself”) τῶν πραγμάτων, κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς οὐδέποτε δύνανται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι· ἐπεὶ (clause-initial so causal i.e. “for” or “since”) οὐκ (yes/no questions starting with οὐ expect a positive answer) ἂν ἐπαύσαντο (counterfactual - could also have translated as “For wouldn’t such offerings have ceased…” - also this whole sentence is a conditional sentence with the protasis being understood in verse 1) προσφερόμεναι, διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν (τὸ ἔχειν usually translated as the gerund “having” but I’ve translated it here as “would have” since it’s part of the counterfactual statement) ἔτι συνείδησιν (or phps. “awareness”) ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας ἅπαξ (or “once and for always”) κεκαθαρισμένους; Have I got everything more or less right here? ---
**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2026, 1:17pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/translation-of-hebrews-10-1-2/31309/2 "2026-10-29T13:17:57Z")
What strikes me right away about this is that it’s blatantly ungrammatical: it looks as if δύνανται should be δύναται, since the subject is ὁ νόμος. And one minor point: εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς doesn’t go with τοὺς προσερχομένους (your “those who continually draw near”) but with προσφέρουσιν. And you might note that there’s nothing in the Greek itself indicating that ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο is a rhetorical question rather than a statement. ---
**Author:** ![Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/mitch/32/222_2.png) [@Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/u/Mitch)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2026, 2:16pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/translation-of-hebrews-10-1-2/31309/3 "2026-10-29T14:16:30Z")
Hah that’s weird Michael, it’s δύναται of course in my NA28 GNT but for ease of posting I copied the verses from the Scaife Viewer which checking it now says they use the old text of Westcott and Hort so probably an error in transcription. Thanks also for your other comments, I’ll try and digest them later today. ---
**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2026, 3:58pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/translation-of-hebrews-10-1-2/31309/4 "2026-10-29T15:58:33Z")
Mitch, I see there’s a papyrus of “about 200”—P46—that reportedly has δύναται. That must be the earliest testimony. I guess earlier editions went with δύνανται (Sinaiticus etc.) by default. But I haven’t really looked into it. ---
**Author:** ![Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/mitch/32/222_2.png) [@Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/u/Mitch)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2026, 5:51pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/translation-of-hebrews-10-1-2/31309/5 "2026-10-30T17:51:51Z")
Yes I saw P46 in the apparatus, very strange…but lots of odd things in different GNT manuscripts. I can’t get my head around your comment about ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο being a statement not a question. I took it as a question because the sentence ends with “;” but punctuation of course is a late addition to the GNT. But if it’s a counterfactual statement not a counterfactual question, how might verse 2 translate in that case? “For such offerings would not cease for the reason that that those ministering them, having been definitively cleansed, would no longer have consciousness of sin” doesn’t make sense to me… ---
**Author:** ![mwh](https://www.textkit.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@mwh](https://www.textkit.com/u/mwh)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2026, 6:46pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/translation-of-hebrews-10-1-2/31309/6 "2026-10-30T18:46:13Z")
Yes it’s the context—but nothing else—that shows it should be read as a rhetorical question. Sorry if my comment misled you. οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι “they wouldn’t have stopped being offered” (or here of course “wouldn’t they have …?"). Since English “can” can be either singular or plural, it’s the Greek that shows up the ungrammaticality of δυνανται. If that’s to be understood at all it has to be referred to the θυσιαι, the sacrificial offerings (which clearly _is_ the subject of οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι). But that’s extremely awkward in itself, and it leaves the opening phrase with ὁ νόμος hanging in midair. Surely the Hebrews author isn’t normally that incoherent? I thought his Greek was held to be good. Far better just to accept δυναται, now known to be much the oldest witness to the text. Incidentally, a few years back the Oxy.Papyri published some Acts papyri with readings that invite (or rather compel) radical reappraisal of the transmission. In particular in vol.74 (which I no longer have because I threw it away). ---
**Author:** ![Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/user_avatar/www.textkit.com/mitch/32/222_2.png) [@Mitch](https://www.textkit.com/u/Mitch)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2026, 7:13pm UTC](https://www.textkit.com/t/translation-of-hebrews-10-1-2/31309/7 "2026-10-30T19:13:58Z")
Yes when I read this again a short while ago I thought it strangethat ὁ νόμος seems to be introduced as the subject but is then left hanging. My guess is that the author is saying that the Law of Moses can’t make anyone perfect (sinless) because it decrees sacrifices repeated each year, which as the next verse 3 says gives constant reminder of sin etc.