Rev. 21:22 Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Sun Dec 19 08:16:36 εστ 1999
Mk 8:35-37, υυχ Rev. 21:22 Greetings to all,Looking at the Greek text of Rev. 21:22 makes me wonder how this verse fits in with the γσ rule. The text says:hO γαρ κυριοσ hO θεοσ hO παντοκρατωρ ναοσ αυθσ εστιν και το αρνιον.My questions are–is hO παντοκρατωρ in apposition to hO γαρ κυριοσ hO θεοσ? Is Rev. 21:22 an example of the γσ rule? What is the meaning (signification) of και in Rev. 21:22?Thanks,Edgar Foster
Mk 8:35-37, YUCHRev. 21:22
Rev. 21:22 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 19 08:35:16 εστ 1999
Rev. 21:22 κψβ vs αβ Edgar Foster:>Looking at the Greek text of Rev. 21:22 makes me wonder how this verse fits>in with the γσ rule. The text says:> >hO γαρ κυριοσ hO θεοσ hO παντοκρατωρ ναοσ αυθσ εστιν και το αρνιον.> >My questions are–is hO παντοκρατωρ in apposition to hO γαρ κυριοσ hO θεοσ?>Is Rev. 21:22 an example of the γσ rule? What is the meaning (signification)>of και in Rev. 21:22?While this might conceivably be called apposition (that’s the way ι explainthis kind of attributive construction), it really is the regular type ofattributive add-on to a noun. ι take it that here ναοσ αυθσ is thepredicate word and that κυριοσ is the subject; then ho θεοσ and hOPANTOKRATWR, as ι would understand the construction are τωο add-onattributive expressions belonging with κυριοσ, understanding κυριοσ herenot as a title but as the proper name commonly conveying the Hebrewtetragram when used in Greek without an article; hO θεοσ also seems to beused as a proper name (inasmuch, particularly, as we find it so often usedas a vocative in the λχχ either in the nominative case-form or as” ω θεε“).Standard English pretty much has to convey this attributive sequence asapposition: “The Lord God Ruler of all.” ι don’t think the γσ rule hasanything to do with this phraseology.As for και, ι would take it as a simple conjunction used to add a secondsubject to the predicate of the original clause (to ναοσ αυθσ εστιν). Isuppose it would be ποσσιβλε to punctuate with a comma after εστιν andunderstand το αρνιον as an appositive to κυριοσ hO θεοσ hOPANTOKRATWR–with και having adverbial force (“even the Lamb”), but to mepersonally, that seems far less natural than reading το αρνιον as anappended second subject linked to the first with the και.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Rev. 21:22KJV vs αβ
Mon Dec 20 10:06:18 εστ 1999
μαρτυρουντεσ, 1 Jo. 5:7 κψβ / αβ Carl Conrad writes:>>As for και, ι would take it as a simple conjunction used to add a secondsubject to the predicate of the original clause (to ναοσ αυθσ εστιν). Isuppose it would be ποσσιβλε to punctuate with a comma after εστιν andunderstand το αρνιον as an appositive to κυριοσ hO θεοσ hOPANTOKRATWR–with και having adverbial force (“even the Lamb”), but to mepersonally, that seems far less natural than reading το αρνιον as anappended second subject linked to the first with the και.<<Could και be used adjunctively, in Rev. 21:22? Whether its used adjunctively or as a simple additive, can one properly conclude that the author of Revelation is drawing a line of demarcation between hO παντοκρατωρ and το αρνιον? Now ι have no desire to get involved in a full-blown Christological discussion, nor am ι asking you to agree with any implications ι may draw from this verse. My question concerns the grammar. Is it reasonable to conclude that the writer might be saying that while two persons constitute the temple of the city, hO παντοκρατωρ and το αρνιον are to be differentiated in some way?Regards,Edgar Foster
μαρτυρουντεσ, 1 Jo. 5:7KJV / αβ
God and the Lamb, the temple (Rev. 21:22) David λ. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Thu Jun 25 15:12:17 εδτ 1998
Throne of God and of the Lamb 1 Tim 2:12 It looks as though God Almighty and the Lamb are seen as one in the templeof the Holy City (Rev. 21:22). αρνιον in the nominative here fairlydefinitely identifies His relationship to the temple with that of GodAlmighty. It is interesting that the verb here, εστιν, is singular,whereas both God Almighty and the Lamb are mentioned as being the temple.Does this have to do simply with how the sentence is constructed, or is ita turn of speech purposely designed to stress their unity?David λ. MooreMiami, Florida, υσαε-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
Throne of God and of the Lamb1 Tim 2:12