Revelation 1:10

[] Rev.1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Mon Dec 1 07:57:15 EST 2003

 

[] N.T. Textual Criticism [] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS What I’ve found about this was that although the prevailing interpretationequates the expression “Lord’s day” with Sunday, this equation is based noton internal evidences of the book of Revelation but on three second-centurypatristic testimonies, namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to theMagnesians 9:1 and the Gospel of Peter 35 and 50.In the letter to the Magnesians the Greek text (ch. 9) reads KATA KURIAKHNZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life.” The extant Latin text (athirteenth-century translation) has no word here for “life”. Some scholarstranslate the Greek “living a life according to the Lord’s [day]” on theassumption that a later usage of KURIAKH as a noun meaning “Lord’s day” wasvalid already in Ignatius’ time, which is disputable.As to the Didache, the text enjoins (ch. 14) the doing of something”according to the Lord’s (?) of the Lord” (KATA KURIAKHN DE KURIOU), whichdoes not make sense. The phrase is a complex and difficult one andconsequently different interpretations have been given to it. No reallyconvincing explanation of this old phrase has yet been suggested. Noticethat the noun “day” is not found in the text and that has led some toconclude that the adjective KURIAKH is used here as a technical term for”Lord’s Day.” But, again, there is no linguistic evidence to support thetheory that at the beginning of the second century KURIAKH was already usedas a noun meaning “Lord’s day”.Only in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, which is dated in the latter half ofthe second century, is Sunday unmistakably designated by the technical term”Lord’s-KURIAKH.”The designation of Sunday as “Lord’s day” which unmistakably appears beforethe end of the second century cannot necessarily be read back intoRevelation 1:10. A major reason is that if Sunday had already received thenew appellation “Lord’s day” by the end of the first century, when both theGospel of John and the book of Revelation were written, we would expect thisnew name for Sunday to be used consistently in both works, especially sincethey were apparently produced by the same author at approximately the sametime and in the same geographical area. Therefore, the fact that theexpression “Lord’s day” occurs in John’s apocalyptic book but not in hisGospel-where the first day is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with theresurrection (John 20:1) and the appearances of Jesus (John 20:19,26)-suggests that the “Lord’s day” of Revelation 1:10 can hardly refer toSunday.Rosangela

 

[] N.T. Textual Criticism[] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS

[] Rev.1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Mon Dec 1 07:57:15 EST 2003

 

[] N.T. Textual Criticism [] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS What I’ve found about this was that although the prevailing interpretationequates the expression “Lord’s day” with Sunday, this equation is based noton internal evidences of the book of Revelation but on three second-centurypatristic testimonies, namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to theMagnesians 9:1 and the Gospel of Peter 35 and 50.In the letter to the Magnesians the Greek text (ch. 9) reads KATA KURIAKHNZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life.” The extant Latin text (athirteenth-century translation) has no word here for “life”. Some scholarstranslate the Greek “living a life according to the Lord’s [day]” on theassumption that a later usage of KURIAKH as a noun meaning “Lord’s day” wasvalid already in Ignatius’ time, which is disputable.As to the Didache, the text enjoins (ch. 14) the doing of something”according to the Lord’s (?) of the Lord” (KATA KURIAKHN DE KURIOU), whichdoes not make sense. The phrase is a complex and difficult one andconsequently different interpretations have been given to it. No reallyconvincing explanation of this old phrase has yet been suggested. Noticethat the noun “day” is not found in the text and that has led some toconclude that the adjective KURIAKH is used here as a technical term for”Lord’s Day.” But, again, there is no linguistic evidence to support thetheory that at the beginning of the second century KURIAKH was already usedas a noun meaning “Lord’s day”.Only in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, which is dated in the latter half ofthe second century, is Sunday unmistakably designated by the technical term”Lord’s-KURIAKH.”The designation of Sunday as “Lord’s day” which unmistakably appears beforethe end of the second century cannot necessarily be read back intoRevelation 1:10. A major reason is that if Sunday had already received thenew appellation “Lord’s day” by the end of the first century, when both theGospel of John and the book of Revelation were written, we would expect thisnew name for Sunday to be used consistently in both works, especially sincethey were apparently produced by the same author at approximately the sametime and in the same geographical area. Therefore, the fact that theexpression “Lord’s day” occurs in John’s apocalyptic book but not in hisGospel-where the first day is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with theresurrection (John 20:1) and the appearances of Jesus (John 20:19,26)-suggests that the “Lord’s day” of Revelation 1:10 can hardly refer toSunday.Rosangela

 

[] N.T. Textual Criticism[] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS

[] Rev. 1:10 Ken Penner pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Wed Dec 3 17:03:35 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] Revelation 1:10 and Ign Mag 9 > I know of no word ZOHN appearing in Ignatius’ Ep. Mag. I > refer you to > > http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-magnesians.htm#IX> > which I entered from the Loeb Classical Library edition by > Kirsopp Lake. It is possible that it is mentioned in the notesAccording to Holmes, the word included in the only extant Greek copy of themiddle recension, Codex Mediceo-Laurentianus, is ZWHN.Ken Penner, Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster UniversityVocabulary Memorization software:http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/westerholm/flash orhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] Revelation 1:10 and Ign Mag 9

[] Rev. 1:10 Ken Penner pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Wed Dec 3 17:03:35 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] Revelation 1:10 and Ign Mag 9 > I know of no word ZOHN appearing in Ignatius’ Ep. Mag. I > refer you to > > http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-magnesians.htm#IX> > which I entered from the Loeb Classical Library edition by > Kirsopp Lake. It is possible that it is mentioned in the notesAccording to Holmes, the word included in the only extant Greek copy of themiddle recension, Codex Mediceo-Laurentianus, is ZWHN.Ken Penner, Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster UniversityVocabulary Memorization software:http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/westerholm/flash orhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] Revelation 1:10 and Ign Mag 9

[] Rev. 1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Thu Dec 4 05:50:17 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] Book review available on-line Jason, The Gospel of Peter, written toward the end of the second century, is the earliest indisputable appearance of the technical term “Lord’s-KURIAKH” in reference to Sunday. In two different verses it reads: “Now in the night in which the Lord’s day (hH KURIAKH) dawned . . . there rang out a loud voice in heaven” (v. 35); “Early in the morning of the Lord’s day (THS KURIAKHS) Mary Magdalene . . . came to the sepulchre” (v. 50, 51). This clearly indicates that by the end of the second century Christians referred to Sunday as “the Lord’s Day.” Notice that, in contrast, John’s Gospel, written at approximately the same time of the Revelation, uses MIA TWN SABBATWN, “first day of the week”.Rosangela Lira

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] Book review available on-line

[] Rev. 1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Thu Dec 4 05:50:17 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] Book review available on-line Jason, The Gospel of Peter, written toward the end of the second century, is the earliest indisputable appearance of the technical term “Lord’s-KURIAKH” in reference to Sunday. In two different verses it reads: “Now in the night in which the Lord’s day (hH KURIAKH) dawned . . . there rang out a loud voice in heaven” (v. 35); “Early in the morning of the Lord’s day (THS KURIAKHS) Mary Magdalene . . . came to the sepulchre” (v. 50, 51). This clearly indicates that by the end of the second century Christians referred to Sunday as “the Lord’s Day.” Notice that, in contrast, John’s Gospel, written at approximately the same time of the Revelation, uses MIA TWN SABBATWN, “first day of the week”.Rosangela Lira

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] Book review available on-line

[] Rev.1:10 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Dec 1 15:06:42 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS [] Rev. 1:10 In a message dated 12/1/2003 9:23:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, rosangelalira at terra.com.br writes:What I’ve found about this was that although the prevailing interpretationequates the expression “Lord’s day” with Sunday, this equation is based noton internal evidences of the book of Revelation but on three second-centurypatristic testimonies, namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to theMagnesians 9:1 and the Gospel of Peter 35 and 50.In the letter to the Magnesians the Greek text (ch. 9) reads KATA KURIAKHNZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life.” The extant Latin text (athirteenth-century translation) has no word here for “life”. Some scholarstranslate the Greek “living a life according to the Lord’s [day]” on theassumption that a later usage of KURIAKH as a noun meaning “Lord’s day” wasvalid already in Ignatius’ time, which is disputable.You have omitted something crucial to the understanding to the Magnesians passage and misunderstood something else. It readsMHKETI SABBATIZONTES, ALLA KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTESMoreover, ZWNTES is a masc. pl NOM. part. and thus could not be “the Lord’s life.” The correct (or a correct reading) would be “No longer observing the Sabbath [Sabbathizing?] but living according to the Lord’s Day.gfsomsel

 

[] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev.1:10 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Dec 1 15:06:42 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS [] Rev. 1:10 In a message dated 12/1/2003 9:23:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, rosangelalira at terra.com.br writes:What I’ve found about this was that although the prevailing interpretationequates the expression “Lord’s day” with Sunday, this equation is based noton internal evidences of the book of Revelation but on three second-centurypatristic testimonies, namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to theMagnesians 9:1 and the Gospel of Peter 35 and 50.In the letter to the Magnesians the Greek text (ch. 9) reads KATA KURIAKHNZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life.” The extant Latin text (athirteenth-century translation) has no word here for “life”. Some scholarstranslate the Greek “living a life according to the Lord’s [day]” on theassumption that a later usage of KURIAKH as a noun meaning “Lord’s day” wasvalid already in Ignatius’ time, which is disputable.You have omitted something crucial to the understanding to the Magnesians passage and misunderstood something else. It readsMHKETI SABBATIZONTES, ALLA KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTESMoreover, ZWNTES is a masc. pl NOM. part. and thus could not be “the Lord’s life.” The correct (or a correct reading) would be “No longer observing the Sabbath [Sabbathizing?] but living according to the Lord’s Day.gfsomsel

 

[] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Wed Dec 3 05:21:44 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] Akathist hymn Lira,I’ve run this through my head a bit and no one has responded to the post, soI just wanted to ask…I guess I’m just curious as to what play this KATA KURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES hason the verse in question (Revelation 1.10). I’m not sure what you meant byyour last line:>As to the grammatical aspect, I’m not qualified to discuss it with you, butI see no difference between KURIAKHN [hEMERAN] ZWNTES and KURIAKHN ZOHNZWNTES.Really, I don’t know that ZWNTES is part of the original question. The textreads: EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATI EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi…. That’s the extent ofthe phrase. It says, “I came to be in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” I thinkyour quote from the Magnesian letter applies only in that it contrastsSabbath with “the Lord’s Day,” saying that the latter comes the day afterSabbath. That is the tie. The KURIAKHN hHMERAN ZWNTES (“living the Lord’sDay”) makes really no sense to me.Was there something you meant in that phrase and in your failure tocompare/contrast Sabbath and the Lord’s Day in the Magnesian letter?Best regards,Jason HareStudent of Spanish and PhilosophyMissouri Southern State University – Joplin, MO—– Original Message —– From: “Lira” <rosangelalira at terra.com.br>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:59 AMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 1:10Dear Gfsomel:What happens is that the only Greek manuscript available of the epistle tothe Magnesians _ Codex Mediceus (which is older than the Latin manuscripts)contains the whole phrase: KATA KURIAKEN ZOHN ZWNTES – please notice thatthe word ZOHN is in the original text. Bauckham, in “Lord’s Day”, p. 228,writes, “This passage has provoked textual debate, since the only Greekmanuscript extant reads kata kyriaken zoen zontes, which could be translated’living according to the Lord’s life.'” It is the Latin version which omitsthe word for “life” and scholars in general have opted for the Latin text.But the passage is debatable.As to the context, please notice that the paragraph begins with the words”For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus.” So “livingaccording to the Lord’s life” would be a closer parallel than “livingaccording to the Lord’s day”. What has been pointed out is that the authoris contrasting ways of life here, not contrasting the Sabbath and Sunday,that is, that the Sabbath should be observed not in the way the legalistJews observe it, but as Jesus observed it.Although the longer form of the epistle to the Magnesians is by almostuniversal consent of scholars and critics pronounced the work of somecenturies after the time of Ignatius, it says: “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, andrejoice in days of idleness; for `he that does not work, let him not eat.’For, say the [holy] oracles, `In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thybread.’ But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner,rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiringthe workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, norusing lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor findingdelight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after theobservance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day asa festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [ofthe week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, `To the end, forthe eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and the victoryover death was obtained in Christ,” etc. Chapter ix.As you know, the Sabbath and Sunday were kept by the Eastern Church side byside until at least the fourth century.As to the grammatical aspect, I’m not qualified to discuss it with you, butI see no difference between KURIAKHN [hEMERAN] ZWNTES and KURIAKHN ZOHNZWNTES.Rosangela.— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] Akathist hymn

[] Rev. 1:10 Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Wed Dec 3 05:21:44 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] Akathist hymn Lira,I’ve run this through my head a bit and no one has responded to the post, soI just wanted to ask…I guess I’m just curious as to what play this KATA KURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES hason the verse in question (Revelation 1.10). I’m not sure what you meant byyour last line:>As to the grammatical aspect, I’m not qualified to discuss it with you, butI see no difference between KURIAKHN [hEMERAN] ZWNTES and KURIAKHN ZOHNZWNTES.Really, I don’t know that ZWNTES is part of the original question. The textreads: EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATI EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi…. That’s the extent ofthe phrase. It says, “I came to be in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” I thinkyour quote from the Magnesian letter applies only in that it contrastsSabbath with “the Lord’s Day,” saying that the latter comes the day afterSabbath. That is the tie. The KURIAKHN hHMERAN ZWNTES (“living the Lord’sDay”) makes really no sense to me.Was there something you meant in that phrase and in your failure tocompare/contrast Sabbath and the Lord’s Day in the Magnesian letter?Best regards,Jason HareStudent of Spanish and PhilosophyMissouri Southern State University – Joplin, MO—– Original Message —– From: “Lira” <rosangelalira at terra.com.br>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:59 AMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 1:10Dear Gfsomel:What happens is that the only Greek manuscript available of the epistle tothe Magnesians _ Codex Mediceus (which is older than the Latin manuscripts)contains the whole phrase: KATA KURIAKEN ZOHN ZWNTES – please notice thatthe word ZOHN is in the original text. Bauckham, in “Lord’s Day”, p. 228,writes, “This passage has provoked textual debate, since the only Greekmanuscript extant reads kata kyriaken zoen zontes, which could be translated’living according to the Lord’s life.'” It is the Latin version which omitsthe word for “life” and scholars in general have opted for the Latin text.But the passage is debatable.As to the context, please notice that the paragraph begins with the words”For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus.” So “livingaccording to the Lord’s life” would be a closer parallel than “livingaccording to the Lord’s day”. What has been pointed out is that the authoris contrasting ways of life here, not contrasting the Sabbath and Sunday,that is, that the Sabbath should be observed not in the way the legalistJews observe it, but as Jesus observed it.Although the longer form of the epistle to the Magnesians is by almostuniversal consent of scholars and critics pronounced the work of somecenturies after the time of Ignatius, it says: “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, andrejoice in days of idleness; for `he that does not work, let him not eat.’For, say the [holy] oracles, `In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thybread.’ But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner,rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiringthe workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, norusing lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor findingdelight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after theobservance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day asa festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [ofthe week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, `To the end, forthe eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and the victoryover death was obtained in Christ,” etc. Chapter ix.As you know, the Sabbath and Sunday were kept by the Eastern Church side byside until at least the fourth century.As to the grammatical aspect, I’m not qualified to discuss it with you, butI see no difference between KURIAKHN [hEMERAN] ZWNTES and KURIAKHN ZOHNZWNTES.Rosangela.— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] Akathist hymn

[] Revelation 1:10 and Ign Mag 9 David Thiele thielogian at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 3 21:42:06 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek / Funk’sGrammar Those who have been following the discussion on theLord’s Day/Lord’s life question in Ignatius may beinterested in the article in an early issue of AndrewsUniversity Seminary Studies (1963, by memory) thatdeals with this question in some detail. The author,as I recall is Fritz Guy. (I’m on holidays and awayfrom my sources at the moment, so I can’t be any moreprecise). For what it’s worth, I was not convinced byGuy’s arguments but he does present a useful array ofdata.RegardsDavid ThielePacific Adventist UniversityPapua New Guinea________________________________________________________________________Download Yahoo! Messenger now for a chance to win Live At Knebworth DVDshttp://www.yahoo.co.uk/robbiewilliams

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek / Funk’sGrammar

[] Revelation 1:10 and Ign Mag 9 David Thiele thielogian at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 3 21:42:06 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek / Funk’sGrammar Those who have been following the discussion on theLord’s Day/Lord’s life question in Ignatius may beinterested in the article in an early issue of AndrewsUniversity Seminary Studies (1963, by memory) thatdeals with this question in some detail. The author,as I recall is Fritz Guy. (I’m on holidays and awayfrom my sources at the moment, so I can’t be any moreprecise). For what it’s worth, I was not convinced byGuy’s arguments but he does present a useful array ofdata.RegardsDavid ThielePacific Adventist UniversityPapua New Guinea________________________________________________________________________Download Yahoo! Messenger now for a chance to win Live At Knebworth DVDshttp://www.yahoo.co.uk/robbiewilliams

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek / Funk’sGrammar

[] Revelation 1:10 and Ign Mag 9 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 3 22:35:38 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Tue Dec 2 02:59:44 EST 2003

 

[] Rev.1:10 [] Rev. 1:10 Dear Gfsomel:What happens is that the only Greek manuscript available of the epistle to the Magnesians _ Codex Mediceus (which is older than the Latin manuscripts) contains the whole phrase: KATA KURIAKEN ZOHN ZWNTES – please notice that the word ZOHN is in the original text. Bauckham, in “Lord’s Day”, p. 228, writes, “This passage has provoked textual debate, since the only Greek manuscript extant reads kata kyriaken zoen zontes, which could be translated ‘living according to the Lord’s life.'” It is the Latin version which omits the word for “life” and scholars in general have opted for the Latin text. But the passage is debatable. As to the context, please notice that the paragraph begins with the words “For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus.” So “living according to the Lord’s life” would be a closer parallel than “living according to the Lord’s day”. What has been pointed out is that the author is contrasting ways of life here, not contrasting the Sabbath and Sunday, that is, that the Sabbath should be observed not in the way the legalist Jews observe it, but as Jesus observed it. Although the longer form of the epistle to the Magnesians is by almost universal consent of scholars and critics pronounced the work of some centuries after the time of Ignatius, it says: “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for `he that does not work, let him not eat.’ For, say the [holy] oracles, `In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.’ But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, `To the end, for the eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ,” etc. Chapter ix.As you know, the Sabbath and Sunday were kept by the Eastern Church side by side until at least the fourth century. As to the grammatical aspect, I’m not qualified to discuss it with you, but I see no difference between KURIAKHN [hEMERAN] ZWNTES and KURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES. Rosangela.

 

[] Rev.1:10[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Tue Dec 2 02:59:44 EST 2003

 

[] Rev.1:10 [] Rev. 1:10 Dear Gfsomel:What happens is that the only Greek manuscript available of the epistle to the Magnesians _ Codex Mediceus (which is older than the Latin manuscripts) contains the whole phrase: KATA KURIAKEN ZOHN ZWNTES – please notice that the word ZOHN is in the original text. Bauckham, in “Lord’s Day”, p. 228, writes, “This passage has provoked textual debate, since the only Greek manuscript extant reads kata kyriaken zoen zontes, which could be translated ‘living according to the Lord’s life.'” It is the Latin version which omits the word for “life” and scholars in general have opted for the Latin text. But the passage is debatable. As to the context, please notice that the paragraph begins with the words “For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus.” So “living according to the Lord’s life” would be a closer parallel than “living according to the Lord’s day”. What has been pointed out is that the author is contrasting ways of life here, not contrasting the Sabbath and Sunday, that is, that the Sabbath should be observed not in the way the legalist Jews observe it, but as Jesus observed it. Although the longer form of the epistle to the Magnesians is by almost universal consent of scholars and critics pronounced the work of some centuries after the time of Ignatius, it says: “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for `he that does not work, let him not eat.’ For, say the [holy] oracles, `In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.’ But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, `To the end, for the eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ,” etc. Chapter ix.As you know, the Sabbath and Sunday were kept by the Eastern Church side by side until at least the fourth century. As to the grammatical aspect, I’m not qualified to discuss it with you, but I see no difference between KURIAKHN [hEMERAN] ZWNTES and KURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES. Rosangela.

 

[] Rev.1:10[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 Norman Goos normangoos at comcast.net
Wed Dec 3 09:12:45 EST 2003

 

[] Epikataratos in Gal. 3:13 [] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek As I’ve watched this thread, it seems that the meaning of the words and phrase has become clear but that the underlying question from the question’s originator is actually a theological issue, that being, is worship expected on the Lord’s Day or the Sabbath. If this is the case, the thread has or is heading past the parameters of our list’s intention – Greek, not theology. I think we should be careful not to venture into these waters so as to save our brother Carl from having to step in and curtail the discussion. Their are several apologetics forums where theology may be discussed.Pastor Norman Goos577 E. Jimmie Leeds RoadGalloway, NJ 08205 USAHome: 609-652-2238Office: 609-965-5835FAX: 609-404-1253Web Page: www.christswesleyan.orgNOTE: please do not send unrequested “forwarded” mail of any kind to this E-mail address, as it is not read and clogs up the mail box. Please send any documents for grading or for Internet publishing consideration as an attachment in one of the following formats, RTF, Word or Word Perfect. Please do not send any large photographs (over 100 mg) or ANY business solicitations without prior written consent. This applies to either FAX or E-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[] Epikataratos in Gal. 3:13[] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek

[] Rev 1:10 Norman Goos normangoos at comcast.net
Wed Dec 3 09:12:45 EST 2003

 

[] Epikataratos in Gal. 3:13 [] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek As I’ve watched this thread, it seems that the meaning of the words and phrase has become clear but that the underlying question from the question’s originator is actually a theological issue, that being, is worship expected on the Lord’s Day or the Sabbath. If this is the case, the thread has or is heading past the parameters of our list’s intention – Greek, not theology. I think we should be careful not to venture into these waters so as to save our brother Carl from having to step in and curtail the discussion. Their are several apologetics forums where theology may be discussed.Pastor Norman Goos577 E. Jimmie Leeds RoadGalloway, NJ 08205 USAHome: 609-652-2238Office: 609-965-5835FAX: 609-404-1253Web Page: www.christswesleyan.orgNOTE: please do not send unrequested “forwarded” mail of any kind to this E-mail address, as it is not read and clogs up the mail box. Please send any documents for grading or for Internet publishing consideration as an attachment in one of the following formats, RTF, Word or Word Perfect. Please do not send any large photographs (over 100 mg) or ANY business solicitations without prior written consent. This applies to either FAX or E-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[] Epikataratos in Gal. 3:13[] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek

[] Rev. 1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Wed Dec 3 11:33:48 EST 2003

 

[] Luke 2:36 hANNA [] MALISTA Jason, Just to clear up the matter.In his initial post, Tony asked if Rev. 1:10 referred to Sunday which the Early Church Fathers including the Didache came to designate as the “Lord’s day”. Gfsomsel replied that the term is used even before the Didache, in Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians, referring to Sunday.Having studied the historical aspect of the expression “Lord’s day”, I replied that both the Didache and the Espistle to the Magnesians are without value as evidences, since the texts are defective and nobody knows what the original authors meant. The Didache says KATA KURIAKHN DE KURIOU, “according to the Lord’s (?) of the Lord”, which does not make any sense at all; and the only Greek extant text of the Epistle to the Magnesians says KATA KURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life”; it is the Latin text which omits the word for “life”, and on this basis scholars opted for the reading KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES. But this is debatable. Gfsomsel must have failed to notice that the Greek text included the word ZOHN, and said that it couldn’t be “living according to the Lord’s life”. What I said was that I saw no difference, grammatically, between “living according to the Lord’s life”, and “living according to the Lord’s day”; I mean, why was the reading “living according to the Lord’s life” impossible? I accidentally ommited the preposition KATA in the phrases; it was a mistake. Rosangela Lira

 

[] Luke 2:36 hANNA[] MALISTA

[] Rev. 1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Wed Dec 3 11:33:48 EST 2003

 

[] Luke 2:36 hANNA [] MALISTA Jason, Just to clear up the matter.In his initial post, Tony asked if Rev. 1:10 referred to Sunday which the Early Church Fathers including the Didache came to designate as the “Lord’s day”. Gfsomsel replied that the term is used even before the Didache, in Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians, referring to Sunday.Having studied the historical aspect of the expression “Lord’s day”, I replied that both the Didache and the Espistle to the Magnesians are without value as evidences, since the texts are defective and nobody knows what the original authors meant. The Didache says KATA KURIAKHN DE KURIOU, “according to the Lord’s (?) of the Lord”, which does not make any sense at all; and the only Greek extant text of the Epistle to the Magnesians says KATA KURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life”; it is the Latin text which omits the word for “life”, and on this basis scholars opted for the reading KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES. But this is debatable. Gfsomsel must have failed to notice that the Greek text included the word ZOHN, and said that it couldn’t be “living according to the Lord’s life”. What I said was that I saw no difference, grammatically, between “living according to the Lord’s life”, and “living according to the Lord’s day”; I mean, why was the reading “living according to the Lord’s life” impossible? I accidentally ommited the preposition KATA in the phrases; it was a mistake. Rosangela Lira

 

[] Luke 2:36 hANNA[] MALISTA

[] Rev. 1:10 Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Wed Dec 3 12:50:06 EST 2003

 

[] MALISTA [] Rev. 1:10 OK. Gotcha. However, noting that in Modern Greek KURIAKH is sufficient for”Sunday,” would it be necessary that hHMERA appear with the modifier? Isthat what is done in Modern Greek? How early can we find attestation forthis, or is this Magnesian appearance its earliest witness?Jason—– Original Message —– From: “Lira” <rosangelalira at terra.com.br>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:33 AMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 1:10Jason,Just to clear up the matter.In his initial post, Tony asked if Rev. 1:10 referred to Sunday which theEarly Church Fathers including the Didache came to designate as the “Lord’sday”.Gfsomsel replied that the term is used even before the Didache, in Ignatius’Epistle to the Magnesians, referring to Sunday.Having studied the historical aspect of the expression “Lord’s day”, Ireplied that both the Didache and the Espistle to the Magnesians are withoutvalue as evidences, since the texts are defective and nobody knows what theoriginal authors meant. The Didache says KATA KURIAKHN DE KURIOU, “accordingto the Lord’s (?) of the Lord”, which does not make any sense at all; andthe only Greek extant text of the Epistle to the Magnesians says KATAKURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life”; it is the Latintext which omits the word for “life”, and on this basis scholars opted forthe reading KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES. But this is debatable.Gfsomsel must have failed to notice that the Greek text included the wordZOHN, and said that it couldn’t be “living according to the Lord’s life”.What I said was that I saw no difference, grammatically, between “livingaccording to the Lord’s life”, and “living according to the Lord’s day”; Imean, why was the reading “living according to the Lord’s life” impossible?I accidentally ommited the preposition KATA in the phrases; it was amistake.Rosangela Lira— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] MALISTA[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Wed Dec 3 12:50:06 EST 2003

 

[] MALISTA [] Rev. 1:10 OK. Gotcha. However, noting that in Modern Greek KURIAKH is sufficient for”Sunday,” would it be necessary that hHMERA appear with the modifier? Isthat what is done in Modern Greek? How early can we find attestation forthis, or is this Magnesian appearance its earliest witness?Jason—– Original Message —– From: “Lira” <rosangelalira at terra.com.br>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:33 AMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 1:10Jason,Just to clear up the matter.In his initial post, Tony asked if Rev. 1:10 referred to Sunday which theEarly Church Fathers including the Didache came to designate as the “Lord’sday”.Gfsomsel replied that the term is used even before the Didache, in Ignatius’Epistle to the Magnesians, referring to Sunday.Having studied the historical aspect of the expression “Lord’s day”, Ireplied that both the Didache and the Espistle to the Magnesians are withoutvalue as evidences, since the texts are defective and nobody knows what theoriginal authors meant. The Didache says KATA KURIAKHN DE KURIOU, “accordingto the Lord’s (?) of the Lord”, which does not make any sense at all; andthe only Greek extant text of the Epistle to the Magnesians says KATAKURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life”; it is the Latintext which omits the word for “life”, and on this basis scholars opted forthe reading KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES. But this is debatable.Gfsomsel must have failed to notice that the Greek text included the wordZOHN, and said that it couldn’t be “living according to the Lord’s life”.What I said was that I saw no difference, grammatically, between “livingaccording to the Lord’s life”, and “living according to the Lord’s day”; Imean, why was the reading “living according to the Lord’s life” impossible?I accidentally ommited the preposition KATA in the phrases; it was amistake.Rosangela Lira— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] MALISTA[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 3 13:47:40 EST 2003

 

[] Luke on KATALUMA [] Rev. 1:10 In a message dated 12/3/2003 12:26:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, rosangelalira at terra.com.br writes:In his initial post, Tony asked if Rev. 1:10 referred to Sunday which the Early Church Fathers including the Didache came to designate as the “Lord’s day”. Gfsomsel replied that the term is used even before the Didache, in Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians, referring to Sunday.Having studied the historical aspect of the expression “Lord’s day”, I replied that both the Didache and the Espistle to the Magnesians are without value as evidences, since the texts are defective and nobody knows what the original authors meant. The Didache says KATA KURIAKHN DE KURIOU, “according to the Lord’s (?) of the Lord”, which does not make any sense at all; and the only Greek extant text of the Epistle to the Magnesians says KATA KURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life”; it is the Latin text which omits the word for “life”, and on this basis scholars opted for the reading KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES. But this is debatable. Gfsomsel must have failed to notice that the Greek text included the word ZOHN, and said that it couldn’t be “living according to the Lord’s life”. What I said was that I saw no difference, grammatically, between “living according to the Lord’s life”, and “living according to the Lord’s day”; I mean, why was the reading “living according to the Lord’s life” impossible? I accidentally ommited the preposition KATA in the phrases; it was a mistake. _______________I’m doing my utmost to keep this on a linguistic basis (such as the parallelism between KATA KURIAKH and SABBATIZONTES). I will continue my attempt. I know of no word ZOHN appearing in Ignatius’ Ep. Mag. I refer you to http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-magnesians.htm#IXwhich I entered from the Loeb Classical Library edition by Kirsopp Lake. It is possible that it is mentioned in the notes, but I left some of my books (including my LCL) with a friend while I’m moving so I don’t have immediate access to it. This is, however, a textual-critical question which I would presume would not be a proper subject for discussion any more than one regarding the text of the NT would be in this forum. Let us look at a larger section of the passage.MHKETI SABBATIZONTES, ALLA KATA KURIAKHN [ZOHN ??] ZWNTES, EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU . . .MHKETI SABBATIZONTES — SABBATIZW does not appear in the NT, but it does appear in the LXX with the meaning “keep the Sabbath.” It is in contrast (ALLA) to this that “we” are said by Ignatius to live KATA KURIAKHN [ZOHN ??] ZWNTES. If SABBATIZONTES is “observing the Sabbath” then the latter would seem to stand in contrast thereto. Perhaps, however, it doesn’t stand in contrast to it as being a different day but is a manner of observance. Let us continue.EN hHi KAI hH ZWN hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU. EN with the dat. has basically 3 uses: Locative, temporal and instrumental. The question then is “what do we have here?” Let us first look at the dative pronoun hHi. What is its referent? It must be a feminine noun. When you wrote “ZOHN” I think you intended “ZWHN” since there is no “ZOHN.” It would qualify as would an understood HMERAN. What would be the difference in understanding for each of these? ALLA KATA KURIAKHN [ZWHN] ZWNTES, EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN . . . “But living according to the life belonging to the Lord in [locative] which also our life rose up . . .” This is not quite comprehensible. It might be better to translate “through which [instrumental] also our life rose up . . .” Then, however, one would expect this to be a passive unless it is speaking of Christ as “our life” and his raising himself. We have an aorist active of ANATELLW. But what then do we do with DI’ AUTOU KAI QANATOU AUTOU? To whom does it refer if not to Christ and his death? This begins to remind me of Kierkegaard’s “Sickness unto Death” “The self is a relation which relates the self to itself. The self is not the relation but consists in the fact that the self relates itself to itself.” I’m gettng rather confused by this.What about the understanding of this as MHKETI SABBATIZONTES, ALLA KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES, EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU . . .It becomes relatively simple. “No longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s Day on which also our life arose through him and his death.” EN with the dat. becomes temporal and DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANTOU AUTOU is accounted for in a starghtforward manner as instrumental. The simplest solution is the best (remember Occam’s Razor).gfsomsel

 

[] Luke on KATALUMA[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 3 13:47:40 EST 2003

 

[] Luke on KATALUMA [] Rev. 1:10 In a message dated 12/3/2003 12:26:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, rosangelalira at terra.com.br writes:In his initial post, Tony asked if Rev. 1:10 referred to Sunday which the Early Church Fathers including the Didache came to designate as the “Lord’s day”. Gfsomsel replied that the term is used even before the Didache, in Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians, referring to Sunday.Having studied the historical aspect of the expression “Lord’s day”, I replied that both the Didache and the Espistle to the Magnesians are without value as evidences, since the texts are defective and nobody knows what the original authors meant. The Didache says KATA KURIAKHN DE KURIOU, “according to the Lord’s (?) of the Lord”, which does not make any sense at all; and the only Greek extant text of the Epistle to the Magnesians says KATA KURIAKHN ZOHN ZWNTES, “living according to the Lord’s life”; it is the Latin text which omits the word for “life”, and on this basis scholars opted for the reading KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES. But this is debatable. Gfsomsel must have failed to notice that the Greek text included the word ZOHN, and said that it couldn’t be “living according to the Lord’s life”. What I said was that I saw no difference, grammatically, between “living according to the Lord’s life”, and “living according to the Lord’s day”; I mean, why was the reading “living according to the Lord’s life” impossible? I accidentally ommited the preposition KATA in the phrases; it was a mistake. _______________I’m doing my utmost to keep this on a linguistic basis (such as the parallelism between KATA KURIAKH and SABBATIZONTES). I will continue my attempt. I know of no word ZOHN appearing in Ignatius’ Ep. Mag. I refer you to http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-magnesians.htm#IXwhich I entered from the Loeb Classical Library edition by Kirsopp Lake. It is possible that it is mentioned in the notes, but I left some of my books (including my LCL) with a friend while I’m moving so I don’t have immediate access to it. This is, however, a textual-critical question which I would presume would not be a proper subject for discussion any more than one regarding the text of the NT would be in this forum. Let us look at a larger section of the passage.MHKETI SABBATIZONTES, ALLA KATA KURIAKHN [ZOHN ??] ZWNTES, EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU . . .MHKETI SABBATIZONTES — SABBATIZW does not appear in the NT, but it does appear in the LXX with the meaning “keep the Sabbath.” It is in contrast (ALLA) to this that “we” are said by Ignatius to live KATA KURIAKHN [ZOHN ??] ZWNTES. If SABBATIZONTES is “observing the Sabbath” then the latter would seem to stand in contrast thereto. Perhaps, however, it doesn’t stand in contrast to it as being a different day but is a manner of observance. Let us continue.EN hHi KAI hH ZWN hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU. EN with the dat. has basically 3 uses: Locative, temporal and instrumental. The question then is “what do we have here?” Let us first look at the dative pronoun hHi. What is its referent? It must be a feminine noun. When you wrote “ZOHN” I think you intended “ZWHN” since there is no “ZOHN.” It would qualify as would an understood HMERAN. What would be the difference in understanding for each of these? ALLA KATA KURIAKHN [ZWHN] ZWNTES, EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN . . . “But living according to the life belonging to the Lord in [locative] which also our life rose up . . .” This is not quite comprehensible. It might be better to translate “through which [instrumental] also our life rose up . . .” Then, however, one would expect this to be a passive unless it is speaking of Christ as “our life” and his raising himself. We have an aorist active of ANATELLW. But what then do we do with DI’ AUTOU KAI QANATOU AUTOU? To whom does it refer if not to Christ and his death? This begins to remind me of Kierkegaard’s “Sickness unto Death” “The self is a relation which relates the self to itself. The self is not the relation but consists in the fact that the self relates itself to itself.” I’m gettng rather confused by this.What about the understanding of this as MHKETI SABBATIZONTES, ALLA KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES, EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU . . .It becomes relatively simple. “No longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s Day on which also our life arose through him and his death.” EN with the dat. becomes temporal and DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANTOU AUTOU is accounted for in a starghtforward manner as instrumental. The simplest solution is the best (remember Occam’s Razor).gfsomsel

 

[] Luke on KATALUMA[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Ken Penner pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Wed Dec 3 14:05:41 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] Luke on KATALUMA In modern Greek, KURIAKH stands on its own without HMERA.As a parallel to this elided hHMERA, BAGD offers Jer. 52:12 (tenth of themonth) and AGORAIOS referring to a court “day”.The lexica are really a good place to start for these kinds of questions.Look up the secondary literature given (although in BAGD it is quite dated;the mid ’60s produced several articles on this topic).Note the context: Ignatius wrote that those who “no longer sabbatized” but”lived according to Christ Jesus” were the “godly prophets” who “lived inantiquated practices”! Are we to imagine that Ignatius thought the prophetsobserved Sunday rather than Saturday?Ken Penner, Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster UniversityGreek Vocabulary Memorization software:http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/westerholm/flash orhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join > However, noting that in Modern Greek KURIAKH is sufficient for> “Sunday,” would it be necessary that hHMERA appear with the > modifier? Is> that what is done in Modern Greek? How early can we find > attestation for> this, or is this Magnesian appearance its earliest witness?

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] Luke on KATALUMA

[] Rev 1:10 Gene Baker ekbaker at essex1.com
Wed Jun 23 22:34:16 EDT 2010

 

[] Song or Songs? [] Rev 1:10 I am having a discussion with another person about the meaning of THiKURIAKHi hHMERAi in Rev. 1:10. He is taking that phrase as equivalent toTHi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU. BAG says that the phrase refers to the Lord’s Day,that is the first day of the week. My discussion partner say simply thatBAG has it wrong. Does anyone know if THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi is used as theequivalent of THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU? If BAG has it wrong, so do Alford andMoffatt. TIA Gene Baker Sterling, IL

 

[] Song or Songs?[] Rev 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 24 00:13:31 EDT 2010

 

[] Rev 1:10 [] Rev 1:10 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATI EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi KAI HKOUSA OPISW MOU FWNHN MEGALHN hWS SALPIGGOSI’m having some difficulty understanding what you consider the problem to be here.  Would you like 6 doughnuts or half a dozen?  My best guess is that you are referring to the LXX use of the phrase in Amos 5.18 and 20.  If so, it hardly seems credible that this could be the reference in Re 1.10 since Amos references the eschatological “Day of the Lord”, i.e. according to Amos the day when God comes in judgement (Amos 5.20 οὐχὶ σκότος ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου καὶ οὐ φῶς; OUXI SKOTOS hH hHMERA TOU KURIOU KAI OU FWS?).  One other interpretation of EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi which I have encountered is that of Seventh Day Adventists that it references Easter.  I have no intention of discussing that since it is clearly beyond the list protocol though I will say that it makes more sense than to take it as the eschatological Day of the Lord. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Gene Baker <ekbaker at essex1.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Wed, June 23, 2010 7:34:16 PMSubject: [] Rev 1:10I am having a discussion with another person about the meaning of THiKURIAKHi  hHMERAi  in Rev. 1:10.  He is taking that phrase as equivalent toTHi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU.  BAG says that the phrase refers to the Lord’s Day,that is the first day of the week.  My discussion partner say simply thatBAG has it wrong.  Does anyone know if THi KURIAKHi  hHMERAi  is used as theequivalent of THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU?  If BAG has it wrong, so do Alford andMoffatt.  TIA  Gene Baker  Sterling, IL— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev 1:10[] Rev 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 Alex Poulos apviper at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 09:17:44 EDT 2010

 

[] Rev 1:10 [] Rev 1:10 I think the question is the question here is does the phrase refer to theeschatological Day of the Lord, or to Sunday. The phrase is certainly usedfor Sunday in the papyri (If I’m reading BDAG correctly), and it does citeRev 1:10 as referring to Sunday. I’m quite happy to take that as the basemeaning, though apocalyptic language is slippery and considering the natureof the book, I wouldn’t be surprised if the eschaton was in view with thisphrase (I’d actually be surprised if it wasn’t).Alex PoulosSenior – Computer ScienceNC State UniversityOn Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>wrote:> ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην> ὡς σάλπιγγος> EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATI EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi KAI HKOUSA OPISW MOU FWNHN> MEGALHN hWS SALPIGGOS> > I’m having some difficulty understanding what you consider the problem to> be here. Would you like 6 doughnuts or half a dozen? My best guess is that> you are referring to the LXX use of the phrase in Amos 5.18 and 20. If so,> it hardly seems credible that this could be the reference in Re 1.10 since> Amos references the eschatological “Day of the Lord”, i.e. according to Amos> the day when God comes in judgement (Amos 5.20 οὐχὶ σκότος ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ> κυρίου καὶ οὐ φῶς; OUXI SKOTOS hH hHMERA TOU KURIOU KAI OU FWS?). One other> interpretation of EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi which I have encountered is that> of Seventh Day Adventists that it references Easter. I have no intention of> discussing that since it is clearly beyond the list protocol though I will> say that it makes more sense than to take it as the eschatological Day of> the Lord.> > george> gfsomsel> > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > > ________________________________> From: Gene Baker <ekbaker at essex1.com>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 7:34:16 PM> Subject: [] Rev 1:10> > I am having a discussion with another person about the meaning of THi> KURIAKHi hHMERAi in Rev. 1:10. He is taking that phrase as equivalent to> THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU. BAG says that the phrase refers to the Lord’s Day,> that is the first day of the week. My discussion partner say simply that> BAG has it wrong. Does anyone know if THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi is used as> the> equivalent of THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU? If BAG has it wrong, so do Alford> and> Moffatt.> > > > TIA> > > > Gene Baker> > Sterling, IL> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] Rev 1:10[] Rev 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 24 09:54:04 EDT 2010

 

[] Rev 1:10 [] Rev 1:10 I think Ignatius is rather clear in his use of the term κυριακὴν KURIAKHN when he explicates it as ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ  EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU.  He contrasts this with σαββατίζοντες SABBATIZONTES which makes it rather apparent that he is viewing it as a specific day and not an eschatological event.Εἰ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἦλθον, μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, <ὅν>τινες ἀρνοῦνται, διʼ οὗ μυστηρίου ἐλάβομεν τὸ πιστεύειν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν, ἵνα εὑρεθῶμεν μαθηταὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου διδασκάλου ἡμῶν·  EI OUN HOI EN PALAIOIS PRAGMASIN ANASTRAFENTES EIS KANOTHTA ELPIDOS HLQON, MHKETI SABBATIZONTES ALLA KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES, EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU, <hON> TINES ARNOUNTAI, DI’ hOU MUSTHRIOU ELABOMEN TO PISTEUEIN, KAI DIA TOUTO hUPOMENOMEN, hINA HEUREQEMEN MAQHTAI IHSOU XRISTOU TOU MONOU DIDASKALOU hHMWN. Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (154). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Alex Poulos <apviper at gmail.com>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>Cc: Gene Baker <ekbaker at essex1.com>; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thu, June 24, 2010 6:17:44 AMSubject: Re: [] Rev 1:10I think the question is the question here is does the phrase refer to the eschatological Day of the Lord, or to Sunday.  The phrase is certainly used for Sunday in the papyri (If I’m reading BDAG correctly), and it does cite Rev 1:10 as referring to Sunday.  I’m quite happy to take that as the base meaning, though apocalyptic language is slippery and considering the nature of the book, I wouldn’t be surprised if the eschaton was in view with this phrase (I’d actually be surprised if it wasn’t).Alex PoulosSenior – Computer ScienceNC State UniversityOn Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος>EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATI EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi KAI HKOUSA OPISW MOU FWNHN MEGALHN hWS SALPIGGOS> >I’m having some difficulty understanding what you consider the problem to be here.  Would you like 6 doughnuts or half a dozen?  My best guess is that you are referring to the LXX use of the phrase in Amos 5.18 and 20.  If so, it hardly seems credible that this could be the reference in Re 1.10 since Amos references the eschatological “Day of the Lord”, i.e. according to Amos the day when God comes in judgement (Amos 5.20 οὐχὶ σκότος ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου καὶ οὐ φῶς; OUXI SKOTOS hH hHMERA TOU KURIOU KAI OU FWS?).  One other interpretation of EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi which I have encountered is that of Seventh Day Adventists that it references Easter.  I have no intention of discussing that since it is clearly beyond the list protocol though I will say that it makes more sense than to take it as the eschatological Day of the Lord.> > george>gfsomsel> > >… search for truth, hear truth,>learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,>defend the truth till death.> > >– Jan Hus>_________> > > > >________________________________>From: Gene Baker <ekbaker at essex1.com>>To: at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 7:34:16 PM>Subject: [] Rev 1:10> > >I am having a discussion with another person about the meaning of THi>KURIAKHi  hHMERAi  in Rev. 1:10.  He is taking that phrase as equivalent to>THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU.  BAG says that the phrase refers to the Lord’s Day,>that is the first day of the week.  My discussion partner say simply that>BAG has it wrong.  Does anyone know if THi KURIAKHi  hHMERAi  is used as the>equivalent of THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU?  If BAG has it wrong, so do Alford and>Moffatt.> > > >  TIA> > > >  Gene Baker> >  Sterling, IL> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] Rev 1:10[] Rev 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 Dr. Georg S. Adamsen georg.s.adamsen at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 10:05:17 EDT 2010

 

[] Rev 1:10 [] Rev 1:10 As far as I remember, Paul’s use of KURIOAKOS may be the first attestedoccurrence, obviously used with reference to Christ. It is therefore likelythat John uses it in the same way. However, in a book so deeply tied to thelanguage and theology of the Old Testament, not least the Day of theLord-imagery, one must also wonder whether John alludes to the Day of theLord concept. I concluded that this phrases means “on the day of the Lord”,the day of Christ’s resurrection, i.e. either Easter Sunday or Sunday as thefirst day of the week. However, it may very well allude to the OT languageand imagery/concepts. Why is a task for the exegete.Years ago I did not find any passage where John’s phrase “means” ‘the day ofthe Lord’ in the OT sense.Georg S. AdamsenDr.theol., Denmark2010/6/24 Alex Poulos <apviper at gmail.com>> I think the question is the question here is does the phrase refer to the> eschatological Day of the Lord, or to Sunday. The phrase is certainly used> for Sunday in the papyri (If I’m reading BDAG correctly), and it does cite> Rev 1:10 as referring to Sunday. I’m quite happy to take that as the base> meaning, though apocalyptic language is slippery and considering the nature> of the book, I wouldn’t be surprised if the eschaton was in view with this> phrase (I’d actually be surprised if it wasn’t).> > Alex Poulos> Senior – Computer Science> NC State University> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> >wrote:> > > ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν> μεγάλην> > ὡς σάλπιγγος> > EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATI EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi KAI HKOUSA OPISW MOU FWNHN> > MEGALHN hWS SALPIGGOS> >> > I’m having some difficulty understanding what you consider the problem to> > be here. Would you like 6 doughnuts or half a dozen? My best guess is> that> > you are referring to the LXX use of the phrase in Amos 5.18 and 20. If> so,> > it hardly seems credible that this could be the reference in Re 1.10> since> > Amos references the eschatological “Day of the Lord”, i.e. according to> Amos> > the day when God comes in judgement (Amos 5.20 οὐχὶ σκότος ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ> > κυρίου καὶ οὐ φῶς; OUXI SKOTOS hH hHMERA TOU KURIOU KAI OU FWS?). One> other> > interpretation of EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi which I have encountered is> that> > of Seventh Day Adventists that it references Easter. I have no intention> of> > discussing that since it is clearly beyond the list protocol though I> will> > say that it makes more sense than to take it as the eschatological Day of> > the Lord.> >> > george> > gfsomsel> >> >> > … search for truth, hear truth,> > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> > defend the truth till death.> >> >> > – Jan Hus> > _________> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________> > From: Gene Baker <ekbaker at essex1.com>> > To: at lists.ibiblio.org> > Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 7:34:16 PM> > Subject: [] Rev 1:10> >> > I am having a discussion with another person about the meaning of THi> > KURIAKHi hHMERAi in Rev. 1:10. He is taking that phrase as equivalent> to> > THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU. BAG says that the phrase refers to the Lord’s> Day,> > that is the first day of the week. My discussion partner say simply that> > BAG has it wrong. Does anyone know if THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi is used as> > the> > equivalent of THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU? If BAG has it wrong, so do Alford> > and> > Moffatt.> >> >> >> > TIA> >> >> >> > Gene Baker> >> > Sterling, IL> >> > —> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> >> >> >> > —> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] Rev 1:10[] Rev 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 Gene Baker ekbaker at essex1.com
Thu Jun 24 14:15:00 EDT 2010

 

[] Rev 1:10 [] Rev 1:10 Thank you all for your responses. You have confirmed what I suspected to be the case, but since most of my resources are pretty dated I wondered if there might be some more recent discoveries of which I was unaware. When the other person is absolutely sure of his position, I suspect my own may be in error. (On non-essential matters, that is.) Gratefully, Gene Baker Sterling, IL—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Georg S. AdamsenSent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:05 AMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Rev 1:10As far as I remember, Paul’s use of KURIOAKOS may be the first attestedoccurrence, obviously used with reference to Christ. It is therefore likelythat John uses it in the same way. However, in a book so deeply tied to thelanguage and theology of the Old Testament, not least the Day of theLord-imagery, one must also wonder whether John alludes to the Day of theLord concept. I concluded that this phrases means “on the day of the Lord”,the day of Christ’s resurrection, i.e. either Easter Sunday or Sunday as thefirst day of the week. However, it may very well allude to the OT languageand imagery/concepts. Why is a task for the exegete.Years ago I did not find any passage where John’s phrase “means” ‘the day ofthe Lord’ in the OT sense.Georg S. AdamsenDr.theol., Denmark2010/6/24 Alex Poulos <apviper at gmail.com>> I think the question is the question here is does the phrase refer to the> eschatological Day of the Lord, or to Sunday. The phrase is certainly used> for Sunday in the papyri (If I’m reading BDAG correctly), and it does cite> Rev 1:10 as referring to Sunday. I’m quite happy to take that as the base> meaning, though apocalyptic language is slippery and considering the nature> of the book, I wouldn’t be surprised if the eschaton was in view with this> phrase (I’d actually be surprised if it wasn’t).> > Alex Poulos> Senior – Computer Science> NC State University> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> >wrote:> > > ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν> μεγάλην> > ὡς σάλπιγγος> > EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATI EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi KAI HKOUSA OPISW MOU FWNHN> > MEGALHN hWS SALPIGGOS> >> > I’m having some difficulty understanding what you consider the problem to> > be here. Would you like 6 doughnuts or half a dozen? My best guess is> that> > you are referring to the LXX use of the phrase in Amos 5.18 and 20. If> so,> > it hardly seems credible that this could be the reference in Re 1.10> since> > Amos references the eschatological “Day of the Lord”, i.e. according to> Amos> > the day when God comes in judgement (Amos 5.20 οὐχὶ σκότος ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ> > κυρίου καὶ οὐ φῶς; OUXI SKOTOS hH hHMERA TOU KURIOU KAI OU FWS?). One> other> > interpretation of EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi which I have encountered is> that> > of Seventh Day Adventists that it references Easter. I have no intention> of> > discussing that since it is clearly beyond the list protocol though I> will> > say that it makes more sense than to take it as the eschatological Day of> > the Lord.> >> > george> > gfsomsel> >> >> > … search for truth, hear truth,> > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> > defend the truth till death.> >> >> > – Jan Hus> > _________> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________> > From: Gene Baker <ekbaker at essex1.com>> > To: at lists.ibiblio.org> > Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 7:34:16 PM> > Subject: [] Rev 1:10> >> > I am having a discussion with another person about the meaning of THi> > KURIAKHi hHMERAi in Rev. 1:10. He is taking that phrase as equivalent> to> > THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU. BAG says that the phrase refers to the Lord’s> Day,> > that is the first day of the week. My discussion partner say simply that> > BAG has it wrong. Does anyone know if THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi is used as> > the> > equivalent of THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU? If BAG has it wrong, so do Alford> > and> > Moffatt.> >> >> >> > TIA> >> >> >> > Gene Baker> >> > Sterling, IL> >> > —> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> >> >> >> > —> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev 1:10[] Rev 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 Vasileios Tsialas tsialas78 at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 24 14:16:54 EDT 2010

 

[] Rev 1:10 [] Rev 1:10 Since allthe letters of Ignatius mentioning Κυριακή have problems of authorship, they cannot be safely usedas a contemporary context of the book of Revelation. Actually problems of authorshipmean problems of dating. Of course, it seems that in the first half of thesecond century, the first day of the week begun to have a special significance inChristian worship, but, as far as I remember, there is not a single indication ofsuch a custom among the 1st century Christians. On the contrary, I would saythat Paul’s general admonition of no having special days of worship, according tothe Jewish customs, would indicate the opposite (Gal 4:10). Of course,analyzing the historical context of the Christian worship and customs is in away a matter of interpretation, or even speculation.But let’ssay that Κυριακή ημέρα could mean both, the firstday of the week or the eschatological day of the Lord. Are there any linguisticclues that could help us?I think, andI would appreciate everyone’s opinion on that, that the verb εγενόμην offers a clue. The text says:«Εγενόμην εν τη νήσω τη καλουμένη Πάτμο […] εγενόμην εν πνεύματι εν τη Κυριακή ημέρα».If εγενόμην means “was (present) in theisland of Patmos”, in the first clause, I find it most possible to mean exactlythe same at the second clause: “I was (present) in the Lord’s day by means ofspirit”. VasileiosTsialas Athens,Greece> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:54:04 -0700> From: gfsomsel at yahoo.com> To: apviper at gmail.com> CC: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Rev 1:10> > I think Ignatius is rather clear in his use of the term κυριακὴν KURIAKHN when he explicates it as ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU. He contrasts this with σαββατίζοντες SABBATIZONTES which makes it rather apparent that he is viewing it as a specific day and not an eschatological event.> > Εἰ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαιοῖς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἦλθον, μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, <ὅν>τινες ἀρνοῦνται, διʼ οὗ μυστηρίου ἐλάβομεν τὸ πιστεύειν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν, ἵνα εὑρεθῶμεν μαθηταὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου διδασκάλου ἡμῶν· > > EI OUN HOI EN PALAIOIS PRAGMASIN ANASTRAFENTES EIS KANOTHTA ELPIDOS HLQON, MHKETI SABBATIZONTES ALLA KATA KURIAKHN ZWNTES, EN hHi KAI hH ZWH hHMWN ANETEILEN DI’ AUTOU KAI TOU QANATOU AUTOU, <hON> TINES ARNOUNTAI, DI’ hOU MUSTHRIOU ELABOMEN TO PISTEUEIN, KAI DIA TOUTO hUPOMENOMEN, hINA HEUREQEMEN MAQHTAI IHSOU XRISTOU TOU MONOU DIDASKALOU hHMWN.> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (154). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> george> gfsomsel > > > … search for truth, hear truth, > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, > defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________ > > > > > ________________________________> From: Alex Poulos <apviper at gmail.com>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> Cc: Gene Baker <ekbaker at essex1.com>; at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 6:17:44 AM> Subject: Re: [] Rev 1:10> > I think the question is the question here is does the phrase refer to the eschatological Day of the Lord, or to Sunday. The phrase is certainly used for Sunday in the papyri (If I’m reading BDAG correctly), and it does cite Rev 1:10 as referring to Sunday. I’m quite happy to take that as the base meaning, though apocalyptic language is slippery and considering the nature of the book, I wouldn’t be surprised if the eschaton was in view with this phrase (I’d actually be surprised if it wasn’t).> > Alex Poulos> Senior – Computer Science> NC State University> > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> > ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος> >EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATI EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi KAI HKOUSA OPISW MOU FWNHN MEGALHN hWS SALPIGGOS> >> >I’m having some difficulty understanding what you consider the problem to be here. Would you like 6 doughnuts or half a dozen? My best guess is that you are referring to the LXX use of the phrase in Amos 5.18 and 20. If so, it hardly seems credible that this could be the reference in Re 1.10 since Amos references the eschatological “Day of the Lord”, i.e. according to Amos the day when God comes in judgement (Amos 5.20 οὐχὶ σκότος ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου καὶ οὐ φῶς; OUXI SKOTOS hH hHMERA TOU KURIOU KAI OU FWS?). One other interpretation of EN THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi which I have encountered is that of Seventh Day Adventists that it references Easter. I have no intention of discussing that since it is clearly beyond the list protocol though I will say that it makes more sense than to take it as the eschatological Day of the Lord.> >> > george> >gfsomsel> >> >> >… search for truth, hear truth,> >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> >defend the truth till death.> >> >> >- Jan Hus> >_________> >> >> >> >> >________________________________> >From: Gene Baker <ekbaker at essex1.com>> >To: at lists.ibiblio.org> >Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 7:34:16 PM> >Subject: [] Rev 1:10> >> >> >I am having a discussion with another person about the meaning of THi> >KURIAKHi hHMERAi in Rev. 1:10. He is taking that phrase as equivalent to> >THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU. BAG says that the phrase refers to the Lord’s Day,> >that is the first day of the week. My discussion partner say simply that> >BAG has it wrong. Does anyone know if THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi is used as the> >equivalent of THi hHMERAi TOU KURIOU? If BAG has it wrong, so do Alford and> >Moffatt.> >> >> >> > TIA> >> >> >> > Gene Baker> >> > Sterling, IL> >> >—> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> >> >> >> >—> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ _________________________________________________________________Hotmail: Αξιόπιστο email με την ισχυρή προστασία ενάντια στην ανεπιθύμητη αλληλογραφία που παρέχει η Microsoft.https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969

 

[] Rev 1:10[] Rev 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jun 24 15:27:51 EDT 2010

 

[] Rev 1:10 [] Rev 1:10 —– Original Message —– From: “Vasileios Tsialas” <tsialas78 at hotmail.com>To: <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; <ekbaker at essex1.com>; ” Lists”< at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 24. juni 2010 20:16Subject: Re: [] Rev 1:10…> > I would appreciate everyone’s opinion on that, that the verb εγενόμην offers a> clue. The text says:> «Εγενόμην εν τη νήσω τη καλουμένη Πάτμο […] εγενόμην εν πνεύματι εν τη Κυριακή> ημέρα».> If εγενόμην means “was (present) in the> island of Patmos”, in the first clause, I find it most possible to mean> exactly> the same at the second clause: “I was (present) in the Lord’s day by means of> spirit”.> > Vasileios> TsialasWell, I don’t think EGENOMHN simply means “was”, but points to being in acertain state at the same time as it implies a transition from not being in thatstate.First, he came to be on this island, but that was not his normal location.Second, he came to be in the Spirit. This is a way of saying that he had avision. The same expression is found in Rev 4:2:εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματιEUQEWS EGENOMHN EN PNEUMATIRight away I came to be in the Spirit (i.e. under the power of the Spirit)It is parallel in some ways to Acts 10:10:ἐγένετο δὲ πρόσπεινος καὶ ἤθελεν γεύσασθαι. παρασκευαζόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐγένετο ἐπ᾽αὐτὸν ἔκστασιςEGENETO DE PROSPEINOS KAI HQELEN GEUSASQAI. PARASKEUAZONTWN DE AUTWN EGENETO EP’AUTON EKSTASIS.He came to be hungry and wanted to get a meal. While it was being prepared, hehad an “outside-himself” experience.This means that the Holy Spirit came upon him and he saw a vision.Therefore, it seems clear that Rev 1:10 means that John came under the power ofthe Spirit and saw a vision, and it happened on the Lord’s day – which is wellestablished expression for Sunday from the papyri.The Day of the Lord refers to a future time when Jesus will return and exactpunishment on the unbelievers. This sense does not fit at all the context of Rev1:10.Iver Larsen

 

[] Rev 1:10[] Rev 1:10

[] Rev 1:10 Dr. Georg S. Adamsen georg.s.adamsen at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 15:52:34 EDT 2010

 

[] Rev 1:10 [] Rev 1:10 2010/6/24 Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>> > Therefore, it seems clear that Rev 1:10 means that John came under the> power of> the Spirit and saw a vision, and it happened on the Lord’s day – which is> well> established expression for Sunday from the papyri.> Or at least *became* a well established expression. 1 Cor 11:20 is earlierthen Revelation in any case, however.> > The Day of the Lord refers to a future time when Jesus will return and> exact> punishment on the unbelievers. This sense does not fit at all the context> of Rev> 1:10.> Not at all? Rev 1:7 does refer to this day. In my thesis I have calledattention to a number of aspects that do relate to this day, e.g., the factthat there is a close relationship between Rev 1:7 and the presentation ofChrist as the Danielic Son of Man in 1:10b.For the record, I do not argue that “the Day of the Lord” in Rev 1:10 refersto this day (as mentioned earlier).Dr. Georg S. Adamsen

 

[] Rev 1:10[] Rev 1:10
[] Rev. 1:10 Ken Penner pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Wed Dec 3 14:05:41 EST 2003

 

[] Rev. 1:10 [] Luke on KATALUMA In modern Greek, KURIAKH stands on its own without HMERA.As a parallel to this elided hHMERA, BAGD offers Jer. 52:12 (tenth of themonth) and AGORAIOS referring to a court “day”.The lexica are really a good place to start for these kinds of questions.Look up the secondary literature given (although in BAGD it is quite dated;the mid ’60s produced several articles on this topic).Note the context: Ignatius wrote that those who “no longer sabbatized” but”lived according to Christ Jesus” were the “godly prophets” who “lived inantiquated practices”! Are we to imagine that Ignatius thought the prophetsobserved Sunday rather than Saturday?Ken Penner, Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster UniversityGreek Vocabulary Memorization software:http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/westerholm/flash orhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join > However, noting that in Modern Greek KURIAKH is sufficient for> “Sunday,” would it be necessary that hHMERA appear with the > modifier? Is> that what is done in Modern Greek? How early can we find > attestation for> this, or is this Magnesian appearance its earliest witness?

 

[] Rev. 1:10[] Luke on KATALUMA

[] Rev. 1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Thu Dec 4 05:03:26 EST 2003

 

[] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek [] Rev. 1:10 Gfsomsel, You point out that the subsequent words of Ignatius in this phrase would be confusing if they referred to the word “life”. I would say that much of what the church fathers say is confusing. From what I know of the patristic literature, it frequently has an illogical flow of disconnected thoughts. You ask, for instance: “But what then do we do with DI’ AUTOU KAI QANATOU AUTOU? To whom does it refer if not to Christ and his death?” Yes, this is indeed a problem. Where is the word “Christ” or “Lord” here to which AUTOU could refer? It simply isn’t there. That’s precisely why there are authors who believe that the sentence would be still more confusing if the word HMERAN was supplied. See for instance what Kitto says:”Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), that after kuriaken [Lord’s] the word emeran [day] is to be understood. . . . Let us now look at the passage simply as it stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive to which autou can refer. This defect, so far from being remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of emera. Now if we take kuriake xon as simply `the life of the Lord,’ having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer to supplying the substantive to autou. . . . Thus upon the whole the meaning might be given thus:”If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living according to our Lord’s life (in which, as it were, our life has risen again through him, &c.). (Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord’s day).I reiterate what I said before, that the text is both obscure and an object of controversy, so it is valueless as a possible evidence. Rosangela Lira

 

[] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Thu Dec 4 05:03:26 EST 2003

 

[] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek [] Rev. 1:10 Gfsomsel, You point out that the subsequent words of Ignatius in this phrase would be confusing if they referred to the word “life”. I would say that much of what the church fathers say is confusing. From what I know of the patristic literature, it frequently has an illogical flow of disconnected thoughts. You ask, for instance: “But what then do we do with DI’ AUTOU KAI QANATOU AUTOU? To whom does it refer if not to Christ and his death?” Yes, this is indeed a problem. Where is the word “Christ” or “Lord” here to which AUTOU could refer? It simply isn’t there. That’s precisely why there are authors who believe that the sentence would be still more confusing if the word HMERAN was supplied. See for instance what Kitto says:”Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), that after kuriaken [Lord’s] the word emeran [day] is to be understood. . . . Let us now look at the passage simply as it stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive to which autou can refer. This defect, so far from being remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of emera. Now if we take kuriake xon as simply `the life of the Lord,’ having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer to supplying the substantive to autou. . . . Thus upon the whole the meaning might be given thus:”If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living according to our Lord’s life (in which, as it were, our life has risen again through him, &c.). (Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord’s day).I reiterate what I said before, that the text is both obscure and an object of controversy, so it is valueless as a possible evidence. Rosangela Lira

 

[] William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek[] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Dec 4 06:34:20 EST 2003

 

[] Book review available on-line THREAD CLOSED: [] Rev. 1:10 In a message dated 12/4/2003 5:58:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, rosangelalira at terra.com.br writes:You point out that the subsequent words of Ignatius in this phrase would be confusing if they referred to the word “life”. I would say that much of what the church fathers say is confusing. From what I know of the patristic literature, it frequently has an illogical flow of disconnected thoughts. I reiterate what I said before, that the text is both obscure and an object of controversy, so it is valueless as a possible evidence. ____________________I suppose you have a right to your opinion even though you’re wrong.gfsomsel

 

[] Book review available on-lineTHREAD CLOSED: [] Rev. 1:10

[] Rev. 1:10 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Dec 4 06:34:20 EST 2003

 

[] Book review available on-line THREAD CLOSED: [] Rev. 1:10 In a message dated 12/4/2003 5:58:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, rosangelalira at terra.com.br writes:You point out that the subsequent words of Ignatius in this phrase would be confusing if they referred to the word “life”. I would say that much of what the church fathers say is confusing. From what I know of the patristic literature, it frequently has an illogical flow of disconnected thoughts. I reiterate what I said before, that the text is both obscure and an object of controversy, so it is valueless as a possible evidence. ____________________I suppose you have a right to your opinion even though you’re wrong.gfsomsel

 

[] Book review available on-lineTHREAD CLOSED: [] Rev. 1:10

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>