My insufficiency

What is this first sentence of the letter to the Hebrews? How would I translate it? Is there only one 'right' translation? (No) Life and language are never so clear cut. But there are stronger and weaker translations, colorful and bland translations, obtuse and transparent translations in many ways and in many parts.

The obtuse is the parable, the saying that they will not hear so they might turn and be healed. Transparency by itself requires elaboration: what can you see from this translation: transparency of thought, transparency of structure, transparency of 'meaning'? Meaning itself is dangerous stuff. It makes us think we are in charge if we think we 'understand' something. And if anything is true, it is that God is in charge - and us if at all, only through the median of the consecration of our lives in Christ. Such is the way we become 'kings and priests'. When you are on the median, you can go both forwards and backwards.

I have a simple rule with respect to translating. If the source language plays games, then the target language must imitate or note the game. Hebrews 1:1-4 is one sentence. It begins, as everyone knows, with alliteration, a packet of p's. And it is an enormous rhetorical game of theological praise. What is this anarthrous son? Maybe we should pay attention - precisely because we do not understand.

In-many-portions and in-many-fashions, of old
God having spoken to our ancestors by the prophets,
in these last days speaks to us by a son,
whom he appoints heir of all things,
through whom he also makes all times and seasons,
who, being the effulgence of glory
and the exact imprint of his very being,
bearing all things by the declaration of his power,
when he had made purification for sins,
he sat down at the right of the majesty on high,
having become as much superior to angels
as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

(By the way I don't do Greek - I can barely read it.) Am I allowed to see this as a theological statement? I have no choice. It most obviously is a theological statement. I.e. whatever I do with this translation, I am on grounds that make statements about the nature of and character of God and the word that is a son that is glory's effulgence and his very being's exact imprint and who bears all things by his power's declaration and his declaration's power.

(I can already see that 'his' is ambiguous as to its antecedent. In a translation, I would rather not resolve ambiguity. I think that is between the reader and the read. Are we for instance already in the presence of the oracle of the Lord in Psalm 110 and the declaration in Psalm 2?)

In English I have wrestled with data design and naming for 40 years. What are potential independent entities in the sentence? An independent entity has its own identifier and has attributes. So it has a unique name by which we can point and say: this one and not some other and it has attributes that characterise it. A dependent entity has attributes but must take its identity from the owning independent entity. Dependent entities can become independent if we give them independent identifiers. In a given sentence, every noun needs to be examined to test if it is independent or dependent. This analysis must carry us out of the sentence to see how the nouns are used in other places.

What we have in Hebrews 1:1 is a theological statement relating a large number of nouns, every one of which could be seen as independent or dependent. Here are the nouns: time, ancestors, prophets, days, son, (us), heir, ages or worlds, reflection, glory, imprint, being, things, word, power, purification, sins, hand, majesty, angels, name.

Which of these have independent identity? We can identify nouns related to time, eons past, ancestors, last days, we can count or name days, as in the opening of Ruth 1:1. We can identify nouns related to person, we can name the person, us, ancestors, prophets, God (except in this case we have no identity yet for 'a son'). We can point to the nouns related to things, worlds, sins, things, purification, majesty, name.

Which nouns are dependent on another nouns for identity? I.e. which are without identity except as they relate to other nouns, maybe reflection, glory, imprint, being, word, power? Of these few possibly dependent entities, are they independent of each other?

Take glory for example. It has no pronoun in this sermon. The heavens declare the glory of God without voice, and their sound is gone into all the world. We can point heavenward. If I identify God's glory, have I necessarily also identified God's glorious word? Now take power. If I identify the power of a son, have I necessarily identified the power of the word? or the word of the power? Are these emanations of the son as the word of God to us independent of each other, or do they simply modify each other - as in a 'powerful word' ?

Maybe we don't know the answer. The power and the glory seem to me both to be potentially at least independent aspects of God and also of the word of God, in this case described as 'a son'. Having made that decision, I cannot demote power to the role of an adjective simply attributing a property value to the word.

Forgive me please for my rudeness.