Thanks Ken, So does that then make it 'itself' rather than 'herself'? Sorry guys, I can't learn the same way, I tend to learn from my mistakes and from asking questions. Otherwise I would have a PHD in something if i was capable of learning like everyone else. I only take in little parts at a time, my brain doesn't seem to like too much at once lol it shuts down...I laughed, but i'm seriousKen M. Penner wrote:In Sinaiticus, final nu is often indicated by a line over the preceding letter, especially when at the end of a line. That's why it looks like Sinaiticus says εαυτη but actually εαυτην is meant. Another example occurs earlier in this column of Sinaiticus: αυτο in 19:5 = αυτον.Catherine Brown wrote:I am a beginner but straight away i have spotted this in the sinaiticus and the textus receptus. ... οτι ηλθεν ο γαμοϲ του αρνιου και η γυνη αυτου ητοιμαϲεν εαυτη
Statistics: Posted by Catherine Brown — February 19th, 2014, 6:36 am
Thanks for your input Barry, I've heard this before but what i don't understand is, why the writer of John, uses both these words for lamb. He obviously made a conscious decision to do so. If both words are the same, i'm sure i would pick the one that took less time to write...if αρνιον became the same word as αμνος, then wouldn't it have fallen out of use completely, since there would be no need to have the two? Who is he feeding when he says 'feed my lambkins(αρνια)' aren't these both male and female followers, so using αμνος wouldn't fit. Its not 'Jesus' here. The biggest problem I have with this is how do we know it lost its diminutive form? Are there greek texts from before the NT was written that clearly show that this is the case, and if so, where are they? Sorry, call me thick but i don't understand how this can be the caseBarry Hofstetter wrote: αρνιον and αμνος are simply considered synonyms, diminutive force having been lost by the time the NT is being written.
Statistics: Posted by Catherine Brown — February 19th, 2014, 6:29 am
Thanks for your input Barry, I've heard this before but what i don't understand is, why the writer of John, uses both these words for lamb. He obviously made a conscious decision to do so. If both words are the same, i'm sure i would pick the one that took less time to write...if αρνιον became the same word as αμνος, then wouldn't it have fallen out of use completely, since there would be no need to have the two? Who is he feeding when he says 'feed my lambkins(αρνια)' aren't these both male and female followers, so using αμνος wouldn't fit. Its not 'Jesus' here. The biggest problem I have with this is how do we know it lost its diminutive form? Are there greek texts from before the NT was written that clearly show that this is the case, and if so, where are they? Sorry, call me thick but i don't understand how this can be the caseBarry Hofstetter wrote: αρνιον and αμνος are simply considered synonyms, diminutive force having been lost by the time the NT is being written.
Statistics: Posted by Catherine Brown — February 19th, 2014, 6:29 am
Good call, Ken! Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — February 18th, 2014, 1:59 pm
In Sinaiticus, final nun is often indicated by a line over the preceding letter, especially when at the end of a line. That's why it looks like Sinaiticus says εαυτη but actually εαυτην is meant. Another example occurs earlier in this column of Sinaiticus: αυτο in 19:5 = αυτον. Statistics: Posted by Ken M. Penner — February 18th, 2014, 1:24 pmCatherine Brown wrote: I am a beginner but straight away i have spotted this in the sinaiticus and the textus receptus. ... οτι ηλθεν ο γαμοϲ του αρνιου και η γυνη αυτου ητοιμαϲεν εαυτη
Well, to be frank, yes, your Greek is terrible, but don't worry about it, all of us have been there. We weren't born speaking ancient Greek...Catherine Brown wrote: Hi, I am a beginner but straight away i have spotted this in the sinaiticus and the textus receptus. Revelation 19:7 in the translations it reads ' Let us rejoice and be glad, and give glory to him; for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready. '. Some translations say 'his bride' in place of 'his wife'. However, after having looked at the greek it doesn't appear to say that at all. οτι ηλθεν ο γαμοϲ του αρνιου και η γυνη αυτου ητοιμαϲεν εαυτη It says to me 'for the marriage feast of the little lamb has come and the woman prepared it herself'. The reason i come to this conclusion is because the noun 'αρνιου' is neuter and does not have a gender. The 'αυτου' is in the masculine/neuter form and so it must refer to 'αρνιου' and cannot say 'his' or 'he' or 'she', but must say 'it'. Even if it did pertain to the masculine 'γαμοϲ', then the 'αυτου' would still have to say 'it' in an english translation as feast has no gender in english. Though a lambkin has a gender in english, from this translation we know not the gender, so it has to be 'it'. Also the word 'γυνη' is not the greek word for bride and I don't belive it should be translated as wife either, but just woman. All wives are woman but not all woman are wives, not to mention, one cannot be a wife if one is not yet married. Plus the hebrew doesn't have a word specifically for wife, its just woman. When the greek has copied from the hebrew OT, it uses 'γυνη' for the hebrew word for woman. A mans woman is his wife, so there is no need for the word wife I believe anyway. Does this make sense? Or is my greek terrible lol
ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτήν... [SBL]
The translations based on the latest text critical editions have ἑαυτήν, the reflexive pronoun used as an accusative direct object, not the dative as in the texts you cite above, and that's why they render as they do. While Sinaiticus is one of the most important witnesses that we have from ancient times it is far from the only one, and the NA and SBL editors felt that the accusative was the better reading based on the total manuscript evidence.
αρνιον and αμνος are simply considered synonyms, diminutive force having been lost by the time the NT is being written.
The semantic range (range of meaning) of γυνη includes both woman in general and what we mean by wife. Context determines which, and context seems fairly clear here. We occasionally use the word "woman" for wife in English, but it's considered an informal or even slang usage.
Again, you would be well served to begin an orderly study of Greek. There are a number of online resources to assist you, as well as many more traditional print resources.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — February 18th, 2014, 10:39 am
Hi, I am a beginner but straight away i have spotted this in the sinaiticus and the textus receptus. Revelation 19:7 in the translations it reads ' Let us rejoice and be glad, and give glory to him; for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready. '. Some translations say 'his bride' in place of 'his wife'. However, after having looked at the greek it doesn't appear to say that at all. οτι ηλθεν ο γαμοϲ του αρνιου και η γυνη αυτου ητοιμαϲεν εαυτη It says to me 'for the marriage feast of the little lamb has come and the woman prepared it herself'. The reason i come to this conclusion is because the noun 'αρνιου' is neuter and does not have a gender. The 'αυτου' is in the masculine/neuter form and so it must refer to 'αρνιου' and cannot say 'his' or 'he' or 'she', but must say 'it'. Even if it did pertain to the masculine 'γαμοϲ', then the 'αυτου' would still have to say 'it' in an english translation as feast has no gender in english. Though a lambkin has a gender in english, from this translation we know not the gender, so it has to be 'it'. Also the word 'γυνη' is not the greek word for bride and I don't belive it should be translated as wife either, but just woman. All wives are woman but not all woman are wives, not to mention, one cannot be a wife if one is not yet married. Plus the hebrew doesn't have a word specifically for wife, its just woman. When the greek has copied from the hebrew OT, it uses 'γυνη' for the hebrew word for woman. A mans woman is his wife, so there is no need for the word wife I believe anyway. Does this make sense? Or is my greek terrible lol
I am aware that people think this lambkin is 'Jesus' but he is referred to as the 'amnos' masculine lamb. This word is not used in revelation, the 'αρνιου' is only used in revelation and in John, that I can see so far. These are two different words and, in John 21:15 (αρνια) and John 1:29 (αμνος)....he distinguished between the two words when he wrote.
I do apologize if I have posted in the wrong thread, it seemed to fit here.
Statistics: Posted by Catherine Brown — February 15th, 2014, 9:59 am
Thanks Barry, I'll have a look
Statistics: Posted by Catherine Brown — February 20th, 2014, 6:49 am
Think about how our own language works, and that fact that we have synonyms, words currently in use for essentially the same thing. I posted the lexical reference from BDAG in another thread which gives some of the references for which you are asking. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — February 19th, 2014, 10:41 amCatherine Brown wrote:Thanks for your input Barry, I've heard this before but what i don't understand is, why the writer of John, uses both these words for lamb. He obviously made a conscious decision to do so. If both words are the same, i'm sure i would pick the one that took less time to write...if αρνιον became the same word as αμνος, then wouldn't it have fallen out of use completely, since there would be no need to have the two? Who is he feeding when he says 'feed my lambkins(αρνια)' aren't these both male and female followers, so using αμνος wouldn't fit. Its not 'Jesus' here. The biggest problem I have with this is how do we know it lost its diminutive form? Are there greek texts from before the NT was written that clearly show that this is the case, and if so, where are they? Sorry, call me thick but i don't understand how this can be the caseBarry Hofstetter wrote:αρνιον and αμνος are simply considered synonyms, diminutive force having been lost by the time the NT is being written.
Thanks Stirling, I shall now have to go and google everything you just said lol....woooshStirling Bartholomew wrote:checked out ἑτοιμάζω in F. Danker 2nd or 3rd ed. (BAGD, BDAG) where cites your passage as an unambiguous reflexive ἑαυτήν pronoun the object of preparation. NA27 Rev. 19:7 χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν καὶ δώσωμεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτὴν SBLGNT Rev. 19:7 χαίρωμεν καὶ ^ἀγαλλιῶμεν, καὶ ^δώσομεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτήνCatherine Brown wrote:... the woman prepared it herself[/u]'.
Statistics: Posted by Catherine Brown — February 19th, 2014, 6:38 am
Thanks Stirling, I shall now have to go and google everything you just said lol....woooshStirling Bartholomew wrote:checked out ἑτοιμάζω in F. Danker 2nd or 3rd ed. (BAGD, BDAG) where cites your passage as an unambiguous reflexive ἑαυτήν pronoun the object of preparation. NA27 Rev. 19:7 χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν καὶ δώσωμεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτὴν SBLGNT Rev. 19:7 χαίρωμεν καὶ ^ἀγαλλιῶμεν, καὶ ^δώσομεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτήνCatherine Brown wrote:... the woman prepared it herself[/u]'.
Statistics: Posted by Catherine Brown — February 19th, 2014, 6:38 am
checked out ἑτοιμάζω in F. Danker 2nd or 3rd ed. (BAGD, BDAG) where cites your passage as an unambiguous reflexive ἑαυτήν pronoun the object of preparation. NA27 Rev. 19:7 χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν καὶ δώσωμεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτὴν SBLGNT Rev. 19:7 χαίρωμεν καὶ ^ἀγαλλιῶμεν, καὶ ^δώσομεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ, ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτήν Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — February 18th, 2014, 6:48 pmCatherine Brown wrote: ... the woman prepared it herself[/u]'.