Revelation 1:1

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Peter Streitenberger ps2866 at bingo-ev.de
Sun Oct 31 04:40:21 EST 2004

 

[] Lk 21:1 ptc, adj or subst? [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Hello,I’d ask myself, whether it isn’t the most natural way to put:ESHMANEN […] IOANNH […] hOSA EIDENas main clause; rendering for example: “He indicated […] John […] all things he saw”Best regards Peter/Bavaria/Germany

 

[] Lk 21:1 ptc, adj or subst?[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Oct 31 04:58:15 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] In Re: Greek Dictionary Resources On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:40:21 +0100 “Peter Streitenberger”<ps2866 at bingo-ev.de> writes:> Hello,> > I’d ask myself, whether it isn’t the most natural way to put:> > ESHMANEN […] IOANNH […] hOSA EIDEN> > as main clause; rendering for example: “He indicated […] John > […] all things he saw”> > > Best regards > > Peter/Bavaria/Germany> —I would suggest that the object here is to be understood “He indicated[it], sending [it] to John . . .”georgegfsomsel

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause[] In Re: Greek Dictionary Resources

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Oct 31 05:13:29 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Dear Peter,>I’d ask myself, whether it isn’t the most natural way to put:> >ESHMANEN […] IOANNH […] hOSA EIDEN> >as main clause; rendering for example: “He indicated […] John >[…] all things he saw”HH: My understanding is that the subject of ESNMANEN is Jesus, but the subject of EIDEN is John.Yours,Harold Holmyard> > >Best regards> >Peter/Bavaria/Germany>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Peter Streitenberger ps2866 at bingo-ev.de
Sun Oct 31 07:37:54 EST 2004

 

[] In Re: Greek Dictionary Resources [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Dear Harold and George,thank you for answering !To be more specific:I’d consider: 1) as main clause: KAI ESHMANEN TW DOULW AUTOU IOANNH hOSA EIDEN (Jesus indicated his servant John the things he saw. ‘He’ is refering to John and not to Jesus, who is the seer in the revelation:1,11ff. His name is introduced in between: V.1.hOSA EIDEN refers to the receiving of the revelation by seeing)2) as Adverbial Clause (specifiying the way the revelation came to John): APOSTEILAS DIA AGGELOU AUTOU 3) as appositiv clause to identify John more specific (refering to two past – Aorist- events leading to his exile – exactly as in Rev 1 9):hOS EMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOUI can’t see any refering point in the appositive clause (hOS EMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU) to hOSA EIDEN, so I consider the appositiv clause to be ended with XRISTOU. The hOSA EIDEN belongs then as an object to the main clause. John did not yet EMARTURHSEN (Aorist) hOSA EIDEN in the past, because the complete revelation still is a future thing for John in the introduction Verses. Best regardsPeter – Bavaria/Germany

 

[] In Re: Greek Dictionary Resources[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Sun Oct 31 09:10:39 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause I agree with Harold.One could add, that the style of the Revelation is very loose (and thereforecharming). It contains mostly a *chain* of thoughts. John does not like tosplit parts of clauses.Splitting hOSA EIDEN from the clause that ends with IWANNHi seems to me veryunnatural – not only for John.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Harold R. Holmyard III” <hholmyard at ont.com>Aan: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: zondag 31 oktober 2004 14:51Onderwerp: Re: [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause> Dear Peter,> > >I’d consider:> >> >1) as main clause:> > KAI ESHMANEN TW DOULW AUTOU IOANNH hOSA EIDEN> > (Jesus indicated his servant John the things he saw. ‘He’> >is refering to John and not to Jesus, who is the seer in the> >revelation:1,11ff. His name is introduced in between: V.1.hOSA EIDEN> >refers to the receiving of the revelation by seeing)> >> >> >2) as Adverbial Clause (specifiying the way the revelation came to John):> > APOSTEILAS DIA AGGELOU AUTOU> >> >3) as appositiv clause to identify John more specific (refering to> >two past – Aorist- events leading to his exile – exactly as in Rev 1> >9):> >hOS EMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU> >> >I can’t see any refering point in the appositive clause (hOS> >EMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU) to> >hOSA EIDEN, so I consider the appositiv clause to be ended with> >XRISTOU. The hOSA EIDEN belongs then as an object to the main> >clause. John did not yet EMARTURHSEN (Aorist) hOSA EIDEN in the> >past, because the complete revelation still is a future thing for> >John in the introduction Verses.> > HH: This does not seem the most natural reading to me. The words TW> DOULW AUTOU IOANNH seem to function as the indirect object of> APOSTEILAS, and hOSA EIDEN seems to be in apposition to TON LOGON TOU> QEOU KAI MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU. I think you’re perhaps focusing on> the idea that the revelation was still a future thing for John in the> introductory verses. First, I don’t see why it has to be. He wrote> the letter after he witnessed all these things. Second, it is> possible that he used the epistolary aorist. By the time the readers> get the letter, John will certainly have been finished witnessing to> what he saw.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Oct 31 08:51:43 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Dear Peter,>I’d consider:> >1) as main clause:> KAI ESHMANEN TW DOULW AUTOU IOANNH hOSA EIDEN> (Jesus indicated his servant John the things he saw. ‘He’ >is refering to John and not to Jesus, who is the seer in the >revelation:1,11ff. His name is introduced in between: V.1.hOSA EIDEN >refers to the receiving of the revelation by seeing)> > >2) as Adverbial Clause (specifiying the way the revelation came to John):> APOSTEILAS DIA AGGELOU AUTOU> >3) as appositiv clause to identify John more specific (refering to >two past – Aorist- events leading to his exile – exactly as in Rev 1 >9):>hOS EMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU> >I can’t see any refering point in the appositive clause (hOS >EMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU) to >hOSA EIDEN, so I consider the appositiv clause to be ended with >XRISTOU. The hOSA EIDEN belongs then as an object to the main >clause. John did not yet EMARTURHSEN (Aorist) hOSA EIDEN in the >past, because the complete revelation still is a future thing for >John in the introduction Verses.HH: This does not seem the most natural reading to me. The words TW DOULW AUTOU IOANNH seem to function as the indirect object of APOSTEILAS, and hOSA EIDEN seems to be in apposition to TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU. I think you’re perhaps focusing on the idea that the revelation was still a future thing for John in the introductory verses. First, I don’t see why it has to be. He wrote the letter after he witnessed all these things. Second, it is possible that he used the epistolary aorist. By the time the readers get the letter, John will certainly have been finished witnessing to what he saw.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1=> Main Clause [from Off List Question — backonlist] George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Oct 31 09:16:54 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:06:33 -0500 George F. Somsel <gfsomsel at juno.com>writes:On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:24:56 +0100 “Peter Streitenberger”<ps2866 at bingo-ev.de> writes:Thanks, George, for you help ! One last point:I can’t see any refering point in the appositive clause (hOS EMARTURHSENTON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU) to hOSA EIDEN, so Iconsider the app-clause to be ended with XRISTOU. The hOSA EIDEN belongsthen to the main clause. There is no kai-connection, which would indicatethat hOSA EIDEN would belong to the app-clause in any case and Johnrefers to DIA TON LOGON KAI DIA THN MARTURIAN in V 9 as the past tworeasons for his exile. These two characteristics of John would be theapposivitve to JOANNH in V 2 but not in connection with hOSA EIDEN.The reciving of the revelation couldn’t obviosly be the reason for theexile. John did not EMARTURHSEN hOSA EIDEN so far.Sorry for my poor English – I’m a Bavarian….PeterI think your comment should be On-list as a basis for further discussion—– Original Message —– From: George F. Somsel To: ps2866 at bingo-ev.de Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:27 AMSubject: Re: Off List QuestionOn Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:07:14 +0100 “Peter Streitenberger”<ps2866 at bingo-ev.de> writes:> Dear George,> > which reference/function does hOSA EIDEN then have ?> You don’t have to put an extra “it” if you take that as object. It > sounds> simplier to me that way.> Best whishes> Peter> > —– Original Message —– You’ve moved somewhat beyond the clause which you were first consideringinto new territory. Your initial question regarding ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS . . . IWANNHiis continued by an appositive clausehOS EMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU hOSAEIDENWith the modern tendency toward shorter sentences, I would translate thisasHe signified [it] by sending [it] through his messenger to John. Hewitnessed the Word of God (1), even the martyrdom (2) of Jesus Christ, asmuch as he saw (3)(1) Yes, I take this as referring to G of J 1.1 EN ARXH HN hO LOGOS . . .(2) this is a usage peculiar to the Apocalypse where MARTURIA alwaysinvolves suffering and even death for one’s faith(3) I.e. the author has already reported (witnessed) regarding thesufferings of Christ.georgegfsomselPeter,The “point of connection” [Anknüpfungpunkt] for hOS EMARTURHSEN wouldnaturally be that of which it is an appositive, namely, IWANNHi. It is”John, WHO WITNESSED . . . ” (or “testified” [i.e., in the GofJ])regarding the suffering of Christ. As you probably realize by now, Idon’t think EMARTURHSEN is an “epistolary aorist” as many maintain. Third person epistolary aorists are rare (One appears in Thucydides). Moreover, epistolary aorists generally involve a form of GRAFW or PEMPW. As regards your comment that “There is no kai-connection, which wouldindicate that hOSA EIDEN would belong to the app-clause in any case”, Iwould not expect there to be a KAI here. Indeed, I would be amazed andpuzzled had there been one. hOSA in hOSA EIDEN is a relative pronounand refers to TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU (NOTE:hOSA is plural and is thus KATA SUNESIN — “according to the sense” –due to its referring to 2 things if taken to refer to LOGON . . . KAI . .. MARTURIAN . . . or to all those things which Christ suffered).georgegfsomsel

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 31 09:20:12 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1=> Main Clause [from Off List Question — backonlist] At 1:37 PM +0100 10/31/04, Peter Streitenberger wrote:>Dear Harold and George,>thank you for answering !> >To be more specific:> >I’d consider:> >1) as main clause:> KAI ESHMANEN TW DOULW AUTOU IOANNH hOSA EIDEN> (Jesus indicated his servant John the things he saw. ‘He’ is>refering to John and not to Jesus, who is the seer in the>revelation:1,11ff. His name is introduced in between: V.1.hOSA EIDEN>refers to the receiving of the revelation by seeing)> > >2) as Adverbial Clause (specifiying the way the revelation came to John):> APOSTEILAS DIA AGGELOU AUTOU> >3) as appositiv clause to identify John more specific (refering to two>past – Aorist- events leading to his exile – exactly as in Rev 1 9):>hOS EMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU> >I can’t see any refering point in the appositive clause (hOS EMARTURHSEN>TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU) to hOSA EIDEN, so I>consider the appositiv clause to be ended with XRISTOU. The hOSA EIDEN>belongs then as an object to the main clause. John did not yet EMARTURHSEN>(Aorist) hOSA EIDEN in the past, because the complete revelation still is>a future thing for John in the introduction Verses.Text (Most people find it easier to grasp what’s at stake with the textclearly present before the eyes): APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWihO QEOS TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI, KAI ESHMANENAPOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi, hOS EMARTURHSENTON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU CRISTOU hOSA EIDEN.I had thought the discussion was about Rev 1:1 as the subject-headerindicates, but I now see that it actually is about hOSA EIDEN in verse 2. Ican see how one might want to take the subject of hOSA EIDEN from thegenitive phrase immediately antecedent IHSOU CRISTOU, but I don’t reallythink that’s at all likely; I think that hOSA EIDEN refers to what Johnsaw–it’s part of the relative clause that begins with verse 2: hOSEMARTURHSEN … The content of the book announced in verse 1 is what Johnsaw in his apocalyptic vision; that’s the visionary experience which theauthor begins to narrate in verse 9 after the introductory proclamatorysection. I would understand hOSA EIDEN as a noun clause in apposition toTON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU CRISTOU.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause[] Rev 1 1=> Main Clause [from Off List Question — backonlist]

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Peter Streitenberger ps2866 at bingo-ev.de
Sun Oct 31 15:21:04 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Dear George,for the greek I actually had in mind: main verb => ESHMANEN direct accusative object=> hOSA EIDENindirect dative object => TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHiWas it the missing “to” after “indicated” that makes the difference in the English and puts John into accusative ? Then the failure was due to my poor english. Thank you for correcting me!The revised version then would be:And he indicated to his servant John – who bore wittness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ – the things he (John) saw, sending by his angel.Does that make sense ?Peter

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Peter Streitenberger ps2866 at bingo-ev.de
Sun Oct 31 11:34:43 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1=> Main Clause [from Off List Question — backonlist] [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWihO QEOS TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI, KAI ESHMANENAPOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi, hOS EMARTURHSENTON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU CRISTOU hOSA EIDEN.(Thank’s to Carl)I’d translate:And he [God or Jesus] indicated his servant John – who bore wittness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ – the things [i.e. the content of the revelation] he [i.e. John] saw [i.e. by vision], sending by his angel.Some further considerations: – the sentence is complete in itself – there’s no need to import an “it” as a word-substitution.- What sense does the hOSA EIDEN in connection with LOGOS TOU QEOU and MARTURIA IHSOU XRISTOU make ? There’s some phantasy needed….- EIDENAI in the revelation usually is used to show the visionary experieces of John. There is no need to search which extra-revelation-things John actually saw.- LOGOS TOU QEOU and MARTURIA IHSOU XRISTOU can just stand alone, without any need no further appositions – just as 1,9 and 6,9- the Neuter plural – as hOSA – is usually used to refer to the things John saw: hA EIDES KAI hA EISIN KAI hA MELLEI GINESQAI META TAUTA- The next Vers contains TA GEGRAMMENA (Neuter Plural) again, just as I’d refer the hOSA to the content of the revelation.- The transmission is DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU just as Rev 22 16. The object there is TAUTA (Neuter Plural) again.- my key issue with EMARTURHSEN actually was, that the content of the revelation (imo: hOSA EIDEN) couldn’t be one of the things John bore witness to in the aorist-past and so it should’t be taken to the appositional clause.Peter

 

[] Rev 1 1=> Main Clause [from Off List Question — backonlist][] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 31 15:55:07 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause At 5:34 PM +0100 10/31/04, Peter Streitenberger wrote:>APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi>hO QEOS ^ TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI, KAI ESHMANEN>APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi, hOS EMARTURHSEN>TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU CRISTOU hOSA EIDEN.>(Thank’s to Carl)You’re omitting, as I did in my transcription that you’ve copied, DEIXAI”to show, reveal”–thisis what governs the dative TOIS DOULOIS AUTOI:”which God gave to him to reveal to his servants what must take placeshortly …”>I’d translate:> >And he [God or Jesus] indicated his servant John – who bore wittness to>the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ – the things [i.e. the>content of the revelation] he [i.e. John] saw [i.e. by vision], sending by>his angel.As George has already noted, this really is impossible and involvestransposition of syntactic elements almost willy nilly from their positions.>Some further considerations:> >– the sentence is complete in itself – there’s no need to import an “it”>as a word-substitution.>– What sense does the hOSA EIDEN in connection with LOGOS TOU QEOU and>MARTURIA IHSOU XRISTOU make ? There’s some phantasy needed….>– EIDENAI in the revelation usually is used to show the visionary>experieces of John. There is no need to search which>extra-revelation-things John actually saw.For the record, EIDENAI is the infinitive of OIDA “know”; although this isfrom the same root as IDEIN the aorist infinitive of EIDON, it is differentin meaning. IDEIN is the verb used in Rev 1:2.>– LOGOS TOU QEOU and MARTURIA IHSOU XRISTOU can just stand alone, without>any need no further appositions – just as 1,9 and 6,9>– the Neuter plural – as hOSA – is usually used to refer to the things>John saw: hA EIDES KAI hA EISIN KAI hA MELLEI GINESQAI META TAUTA>– The next Vers contains TA GEGRAMMENA (Neuter Plural) again, just as I’d>refer the hOSA to the content of the revelation.>– The transmission is DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU just as Rev 22 16. The object>there is TAUTA (Neuter Plural) again.> > >– my key issue with EMARTURHSEN actually was, that the content of the>revelation (imo: hOSA EIDEN) couldn’t be one of the things John bore>witness to in the aorist-past and so it should’t be taken to the>appositional clause.> > >PeterWould you PLEASE observe protocol and use your full-name in asignature for all messages posted to ; this is a standardrequirement and it applies regardless of whether your full name appears inthe “from” header.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Oct 31 15:36:45 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:34:43 +0100 “Peter Streitenberger”<ps2866 at bingo-ev.de> writes:> > APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi> hO QEOS TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI, KAI ESHMANEN> APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi, hOS > EMARTURHSEN> TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU CRISTOU hOSA EIDEN.> (Thank’s to Carl)> > > I’d translate:> > And he [God or Jesus] indicated his servant John – who bore wittness > to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ – the things > [i.e. the content of the revelation] he [i.e. John] saw [i.e. by > vision], sending by his angel.> > > Some further considerations: > > – the sentence is complete in itself – there’s no need to import an > “it” as a word-substitution.> – What sense does the hOSA EIDEN in connection with LOGOS TOU QEOU > and MARTURIA IHSOU XRISTOU make ? There’s some phantasy needed….> – EIDENAI in the revelation usually is used to show the visionary > experieces of John. There is no need to search which > extra-revelation-things John actually saw.> – LOGOS TOU QEOU and MARTURIA IHSOU XRISTOU can just stand alone, > without any need no further appositions – just as 1,9 and 6,9> – the Neuter plural – as hOSA – is usually used to refer to the > things John saw: hA EIDES KAI hA EISIN KAI hA MELLEI GINESQAI META > TAUTA> – The next Vers contains TA GEGRAMMENA (Neuter Plural) again, just > as I’d refer the hOSA to the content of the revelation.> – The transmission is DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU just as Rev 22 16. The > object there is TAUTA (Neuter Plural) again.> > > – my key issue with EMARTURHSEN actually was, that the content of > the revelation (imo: hOSA EIDEN) couldn’t be one of the things John > bore witness to in the aorist-past and so it should’t be taken to > the appositional clause.> > > Peter> —Peter,The translation you propose is impossible since TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHiis in the dative case indicating that it is the indirect object, but youare making into an accusative. It must be “And he [God or Jesus]indicated ** to his servant, John**.”georgegfsomsel

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Oct 31 19:40:06 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Dear Carl,I know that sometimes objects are understood in Greek, but I am wondering whether it would be possible for the initial relative pronoun hHN to do double duty.> >APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi> >hO QEOS DEIXEI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI, KAI ESHMANEN> >APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi, hOS EMARTURHSEN> >TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU CRISTOU hOSA EIDEN.HH: It would be : (This is) the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His servants the things that must shortly come to pass, and (which) He [Jesus] set forth, sending (it) through His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatever he saw.HH: While I think George’s interpretation works, I was just wondering about this one. Could you please tell me if this would be possible? Thanks.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 31 20:28:06 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause [] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause At 6:40 PM -0600 10/31/04, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:>Dear Carl,> >I know that sometimes objects are understood in Greek, but I am>wondering whether it would be possible for the initial relative>pronoun hHN to do double duty.> >> >APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi>> >hO QEOS DEIXEI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI, KAI ESHMANEN>> >APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi, hOS EMARTURHSEN>> >TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU CRISTOU hOSA EIDEN.> >HH: It would be : (This is) the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God>gave to Him to show to His servants the things that must shortly come>to pass, and (which) He [Jesus] set forth, sending (it) through His>angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and>the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatever he saw.> >HH: While I think George’s interpretation works, I was just wondering>about this one. Could you please tell me if this would be possible?>Thanks.I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible, but I’m also not sure that it isnecessary to assume it. Ellipsis of repeated elements is certainly a commonenough procedure in expository Greek. On the other hand, as someone–Ithink it was Arie–noted this morning (morning in the US, afternoon inHolland!), the author of Rev is known for frequent irregularities ofgrammar, so I don’t think we can be confident that he intended for the hHNclause to be carried forward as object of ESHMANEN. I think it possible toothat SHMAINW here may be used intransitively, as in the celebrated dictumof Heraclitus regarding the Delphic oracle: … OUTE LEGEI OUTE KRUPTEI,ALLA SHMAINEI — “…neither speaks nor conceals but points/signals.” Ifthat’s the case, then ESHMANEN here might be taken as “delivered themessage.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Oct 31 16:40:05 EST 2004

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:21:04 +0100 “Peter Streitenberger”<ps2866 at bingo-ev.de> writes:> Dear George,> > for the greek I actually had in mind: > > main verb => ESHMANEN > direct accusative object=> hOSA EIDEN> indirect dative object => TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi> > Was it the missing “to” after “indicated” that makes the difference > in the English and puts John into accusative ? Then the failure was > due to my poor english. Thank you for correcting me!> > The revised version then would be:> > And he indicated to his servant John – who bore wittness to the word > of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ – the things he (John) saw, > sending by his angel.> > Does that make sense ?> Peter > > —Peter,Yes, it makes sense, but you’re leaving out a bunch and that is whatmakes the difference. You have read it thusAPOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hADEI GENESQAI EN TACEI, KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU TWiDOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi [. . .] hOSA EIDEN.This omits the crucial appositive to TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi, namely hOSEMARTURHSEN TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI THN MARTURIAN IHSOU XRISTOU. Thencomes hOSA EIDEN. It would be very strange to have the object so farremoved from the verb I should think. It would be far more natural tounderstand hOSA EIDEN as being an relative clause to TON LOGON TOU QEOU .. . IHSOU XRISTOU as Harold, Carl and I have stated.georgegfsomsel

 

[] Rev 1 1 => Main Clause

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sun May 21 13:38:37 EDT 2006

 

[] specific font problem in recent archives [] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) Hi there,One of the major problem in translated English is identifying thereferent of the pronouns.(In my native Korean, pronouns are not developed as extensively andmuch less frequently employed. Their referents should be explicit. Noambiguity is allowed.)In Rev 1:1APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOUhHN EDWKEN AUTW hO QEOSDEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOUhA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEIKAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOUTW DOULW AUTOU IWANNHAside from the obvious one (the subject of EDWKEN is hO QEOS),I am trying to identify the subject of the verb DEIXAI – (?God orChrist) and the verb ESHMANEN (?God or Christ).Also the pronouns AUTOU: Can I settle AGGELOU AUTOU as God’smessenger or is it possible to read as ‘Christ’s messenger’; DOULOISAUTOU, DOULW AUTOU obviously referring to John, is he God’s servant orChrist’s servant.Or the text is grammatically ambiguous?For example, in Korean translations all these refer to God; MostEnglish ones uses pronouns, leaving me unclear. A paraphrase one -CEV – takes all these refer to Christ.Thanks for your help.Oun Kwon.

 

[] specific font problem in recent archives[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net
Sun May 21 15:17:19 EDT 2006

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) [] Romans 8:23 Oun,I think all instances of AUTOU refer to God, and AUTWi refers to Jesus(1:1). Whether this is valid, or not, demands an appeal to the rest of thedocument. Does Revelation refer to DOULOS/OUS TOU CRISTOU or DOULOS/OUS TOUQEOU, or both. Are the AGGELOS/OUS in this book TOU CRISTOU or TOU QEOU? Orworse, is it a mixed bag, with the same appleations refering to both God andChrist, and both having servants, angels, etc. If that is so, and with someof the paratactic structure in Revelation, my wild guess would be previousor closest reference or search for a pattern within the book.Actually, 1:1 is pretty easy if you believe it is paralleled in 22:6v.1 DOULOIS AUTOU => God’s servants/slaves (22:6)v.1 AGGELOU AUTOU => God’s angel (see 22:6)v.3 AUTHi => the bookv.4 O WN… & AUTOU => Godv.5 A. AUTOU => Jesus Christv.6 P. AUTOU => Jesus Christ (the one who loved us)v.7 AUTON X2, EP’ AUTWi, => Jesus Christv.8 The first impasse– If this is from a Johannine community, they couldcall Jesus QEOS (Jn 1:1), but an appellation first referring to God (A & W,the one who is, and was, and is coming), would now go to Jesus Christ, andthis may be exactly the case in 22:13. There may be a merging of Christ(symbolized as the Lamb here) and God in both Revelation and I Corinthians15:28. Oscar Cullmann’s final note in his Christology of the NT (327),claimed I Cor 15:28 is the consummation of the Incarnation. It idea lookssimilar to the katabasis-anabasis in Philippians 2:5-11 to me.So, my fellow pilgrim, even if we can figure out vs.1, the rest of the bookmay be a mixed bag, deliberately skewing the distinction between God andChrist after the ascension. That could make finding the referent to some ofthe pronouns difficult, especially in the Apocalypse with those referring todeity.I would say, that not only this text, but many others in this document aregrammatically and otherwise ambiguous. Some would say that R. H. Charles(ICC, 2 vols, 1920) attempted a rewrite of Greek Grammar to fit this book.He actually has a short section on Pronouns (pp. cxxi). Whether he was rightin his speculations is another matter, but the fact that the grammar alsobothered him puts this question in good company.Dave SmithHudson, NC—– Original Message —– From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 13:38Subject: [] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)Hi there,One of the major problem in translated English is identifying thereferent of the pronouns.(In my native Korean, pronouns are not developed as extensively andmuch less frequently employed. Their referents should be explicit. Noambiguity is allowed.)In Rev 1:1APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOUhHN EDWKEN AUTW hO QEOSDEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOUhA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEIKAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOUTW DOULW AUTOU IWANNHAside from the obvious one (the subject of EDWKEN is hO QEOS),I am trying to identify the subject of the verb DEIXAI – (?God orChrist) and the verb ESHMANEN (?God or Christ).Also the pronouns AUTOU: Can I settle AGGELOU AUTOU as God’smessenger or is it possible to read as ‘Christ’s messenger’; DOULOISAUTOU, DOULW AUTOU obviously referring to John, is he God’s servant orChrist’s servant.Or the text is grammatically ambiguous?For example, in Korean translations all these refer to God; MostEnglish ones uses pronouns, leaving me unclear. A paraphrase one -CEV – takes all these refer to Christ.Thanks for your help.Oun Kwon.— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)[] Romans 8:23

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun May 21 17:11:16 EDT 2006

 

[] Romans 8:23 [] The function of MESOU in Col 2:14 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed…Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20060521/5ec34add/attachment.pl

 

[] Romans 8:23[] The function of MESOU in Col 2:14

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) Dan Gleason dan- at hotmail.com
Tue May 23 03:11:07 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 John 3.8 present tense hAMARTANEI [] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) gfsomsel wroteThe revelation is about and through Jesus Christ.God gave it to him (AUTWi)that [he (i.e. Jesus Christ)] might reveal to his [God’s] servants. He [Jesus]signified it [very important point that it is “signified”] by sending it throughhis [Jesus’] messenger / angel to his [Jesus’] servant, John. He [John]witnessed [viewed / testified] [concerning] the Word of God, even the martyrdomof Jesus Christ which he saw [THIS ASSUMES JOHN OF PATMOS IS JOHN THE APOSTLE – MANY SCHOLARS DISPUTE THIS].APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOUhHN EDWKEN AUTW hO QEOSDEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOUhA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEIKAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOUTW DOULW AUTOU IWANNHIs there any reason why this interpretation of the referent to the pronouns is incorrect?A Revelation of Jesus Christ …which God gave to Him (God’s Messenger) to show to his Slaves (members of the 7 assemblies) …the Things (ambiguous) which have to happen in Quickness.And He (God) signified it, having sent it through his Messenger to his slave John …who gave Testimony to the Word of God …and to the Testimony of Jesus Christ (not past testimony, rather testimony to come) of every Thing he saw.Dan Gleason_________________________________________________________________FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

 

[] 1 John 3.8 present tense hAMARTANEI[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue May 23 07:21:58 EDT 2006

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) [] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed…Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20060523/0b070771/attachment.pl

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)
[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net
Tue May 23 11:32:56 EDT 2006

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) [] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) George,I think the reason why many insist that DOULOS => slave, is because of whatthe lexicons tell us on this point and the fact that slavery was prominentin the 1st century Roman world. As many as 1/3 of the population of Romewere salves. BAGD states “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined toBiblical translation and early American times; in normal usage at thepresent time the two words are carefully distinguished” (205). This ispreceded by the only definition of the word that BAGD gives, which is”slave.” What he is saying, is that our idea “servant” does not connote thefull force of the term, compared to DOULOW => become a slave, enslave,DOULEIA => slavery, DOULEUW=> be a slave, DOULH= female salve. There must behalf a dozen words in the NT for servant, such as PAIS, OIKETHS, andhUPHRETHS, that may show both connotations. Several of these terms appeartogether in Luke 15, which gives a good overview within the same context.But it looks like DOULOS is a term with a singular definition, and those 1stcentury writers who choose the term knew exactly what it meant. Similarterms are CRISTOS and STAUROS/STAUROW. These became terms of honor inChristianity, but they were not so in the secular Roman world.I realize that this idea cuts across the grain of a western 21st centurymind, but DOULOS is one of the relationships that Christians and Jews holdto God (cf. the Servant of Jehovah passages in Isaiah). A DOULOS may performmany functions, but the fact remains that s/he is a DOULOS and theKURIOS/OIKODESPOTHS has absolute authority, even the authority of life anddeath if the DOULOS rebels or deserts.Dave SmithHudson, NC—– Original Message —– From: <gfsomsel at juno.com>To: <dan- at hotmail.com>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 07:21Subject: Re: [] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)I really don’t know why people insist on portraying the word DOULOS as”slave.” While the word certainly can be used to designate one who is boundand under the authority of another even to the point of being ignominiouslyunder the control of another, I don’t think this is truly the aspect whichis to be emphasized. Paul particularly portrays himself as the servant ofChrist, but I don’t think the emphasis is really upon the servile aspect.He also portrayed himself as an ambassador of Christ. The ambassador waslikewise a servant of the ruler whom he represented, but he also spoke withAUTHORITY on his behalf. It is as an AMBASSADOR SERVANT that we representChrist. It is much like the Rabshakeh in 2 Kg 18 who spoke with authority atthe walls of Jerusalem and with an army at his back to enforce his words.Is this servile? See BDAG s.v. DOULOS 2b. I am reminded of Colin Powellsrepeated statement when asked whether he would continue as Secretary ofState — he said, “I serve at the pleasure of the President.”I think the author of the Apocalypse is explicitly claiming to be John theApostle who witnessed the crucifiction and who is credited with theauthorship of the fourth gospel. In saying that he witnessed the Word ofGod he is making explicit reference thereto. Whether the writer was in factthe Apostle John is another matter. It would seem that he is claiming to besuch. Apocalypses are not normally written by the person whose name theybear. It would be totally uncharacteristic of the genre for this to be thecase. It is claimed by some that EMARTURHSEN here is an epistolary aorist,but I don’t think it meets the qualifications for this. Epistolary aoristsare not normally in the 3rd person.georgegfsomsel_________– “Dan Gleason” <dan- at hotmail.com> wrote:gfsomsel wroteThe revelation is about and through Jesus Christ.God gave it to him (AUTWi)that [he (i.e. Jesus Christ)] might reveal to his [God’s] servants. He[Jesus]signified it [very important point that it is “signified”] by sending itthroughhis [Jesus’] messenger / angel to his [Jesus’] servant, John. He [John]witnessed [viewed / testified] [concerning] the Word of God, even themartyrdomof Jesus Christ which he saw [THIS ASSUMES JOHN OF PATMOS IS JOHN THEAPOSTLE – MANY SCHOLARS DISPUTE THIS].APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOUhHN EDWKEN AUTW hO QEOSDEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOUhA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEIKAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOUTW DOULW AUTOU IWANNHIs there any reason why this interpretation of the referent to the pronounsis incorrect?A Revelation of Jesus Christ …which God gave to Him (God’s Messenger) to show to his Slaves (members ofthe 7 assemblies) …the Things (ambiguous) which have to happen in Quickness.And He (God) signified it, having sent it through his Messenger to his slaveJohn …who gave Testimony to the Word of God …and to the Testimony of Jesus Christ (not past testimony, rather testimonyto come) of every Thing he saw.Dan Gleason_________________________________________________________________FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/——————————————————————————–> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Tue May 23 14:03:10 EDT 2006

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) [] BDAG – 2nd Edition? Dave Smith wrote:>I think the reason why many insist that DOULOS => slave, is because of what>the lexicons tell us on this point and the fact that slavery was prominent>in the 1st century Roman world. As many as 1/3 of the population of Rome>were salves. BAGD states “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to>Biblical translation and early American times; in normal usage at the>present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (205). This is>preceded by the only definition of the word that BAGD gives, which is>“slave.” What he is saying, is that our idea “servant” does not connote the>full force of the term, compared to DOULOW => become a slave, enslave,>DOULEIA => slavery, DOULEUW=> be a slave, DOULH= female salve. There must be>half a dozen words in the NT for servant, such as PAIS, OIKETHS, and>hUPHRETHS, that may show both connotations. Several of these terms appear>together in Luke 15, which gives a good overview within the same context.>But it looks like DOULOS is a term with a singular definition, and those 1st>century writers who choose the term knew exactly what it meant. Similar>terms are CRISTOS and STAUROS/STAUROW. These became terms of honor in>Christianity, but they were not so in the secular Roman world.> >I realize that this idea cuts across the grain of a western 21st century>mind, but DOULOS is one of the relationships that Christians and Jews hold>to God (cf. the Servant of Jehovah passages in Isaiah). A DOULOS may perform>many functions, but the fact remains that s/he is a DOULOS and the>KURIOS/OIKODESPOTHS has absolute authority, even the authority of life and>death if the DOULOS rebels or deserts.> > HH: But to the Jews the word DOULOS may have taken the connotations of its LXX usage, where it seems to have implied more than a slave. Here is one verse, where DOULOS refers to Zebul in the LXX:KJV: Judg. 9:28 And Gaal the son of Ebed said, Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that we should serve him? is not he the son of Jerubbaal? and Zebul his officer? serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem: for why should we serve him?NIV: Judg. 9:28 Then Gaal son of Ebed said, “Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that we should be subject to him? Isn’t he Jerub-Baal’s son, and isn’t Zebul his deputy? Serve the men of Hamor, Shechem’s father! Why should we serve Abimelech?Judg. 9:28 Gaal son of Ebed said, “Who is Abimelech, and who are we of Shechem, that we should serve him? Did not the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his officer serve the men of Hamor father of Shechem? Why then should we serve him?Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)[] BDAG – 2nd Edition?

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue May 23 15:32:18 EDT 2006

 

[] BDAG – 2nd Edition? [] BDAG – 2nd Edition? An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed…Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20060523/c73c3c5d/attachment.pl

 

[] BDAG – 2nd Edition?[] BDAG – 2nd Edition?

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Beata Urbanek beata.urbanek at op.pl
Wed Aug 13 15:09:36 EDT 2008

 

[] Lexical entries and “final meaning” – translation vs.understanding [] subject in Rev 1:1 Dear List,Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHiMy question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO QEOS because it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it Jesus Christ because APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others? Consequently, whose AGGELOS is it?Beata Urbanek

 

[] Lexical entries and “final meaning” – translation vs.understanding[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Wed Aug 13 16:09:41 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 hO QEOS is the subject because it is nominative and the angel belongs to the Father. IHSOU CHRISTOU is genitive so it cannot be the subject of the verb.–Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net————– Original message ————– From: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl> > Dear List, > > Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS DEIXAI TOIS > DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU > AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi > > > My question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO QEOS because > it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it Jesus Christ because > APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others? Consequently, whose > AGGELOS is it? > > Beata Urbanek > > > — > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Vasile Stancu stancu at mail.dnttm.ro
Thu Aug 14 08:31:11 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 The subject of this verb may be indeed ambiguous if we relied solely on the”internal”, i.e. contained within the same sentence, mechanisms. Some”extrenal” evidence however seems to point to the fact that the angel whobrought the message is Jesus’ angel (Rev 22:16), therefore it is probablethat the subject of ESHMANEN here is indeed Jesus.Vasile STANCU—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth KlineSent: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:54 AMTo: greek Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:09 PM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:> hO QEOS is the subject because it is nominative and the angel > belongs to the Father. IHSOU CHRISTOU is genitive so it cannot be > the subject of the verb.> > —> Kelton Graham> KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net> > ————– Original message ————–> From: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> >> Dear List,>> >> Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS >> DEIXAI TOIS>> DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA >> TOU AGGELOU>> AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi>> >> >> My question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO >> QEOS because>> it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it Jesus >> Christ because>> APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others? >> Consequently, whose>> AGGELOS is it?>> >> Beata Urbanek>> >> The subject of the verb ESHMANEN is ambiguous. The case of hO QEOS is irrelevant since KAI in KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS introduces a new clause. The semantic structure seems to point to IHSOUS CRISTOS as the subject, since AUTWi in EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS is coreferential with IHSOU CRISTOU who is the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU.Elizabeth Kline— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 14 13:53:42 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:09 PM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:> hO QEOS is the subject because it is nominative and the angel > belongs to the Father. IHSOU CHRISTOU is genitive so it cannot be > the subject of the verb.> > —> Kelton Graham> KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net> > ————– Original message ————–> From: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> >> Dear List,>> >> Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS >> DEIXAI TOIS>> DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA >> TOU AGGELOU>> AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi>> >> >> My question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO >> QEOS because>> it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it Jesus >> Christ because>> APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others? >> Consequently, whose>> AGGELOS is it?>> >> Beata Urbanek>> >> The subject of the verb ESHMANEN is ambiguous. The case of hO QEOS is irrelevant since KAI in KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS introduces a new clause. The semantic structure seems to point to IHSOUS CRISTOS as the subject, since AUTWi in EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS is coreferential with IHSOU CRISTOU who is the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Thu Aug 14 14:30:54 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 Hello, but would’nt you see the KAI there linking the two clauses together? Meaning that hO QEOS is the one who gave and the one who indicates? And secondly, I would not see IHSOU CHRISTOU as the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS because I would take the infinitive as modifying EDWKEN denoting purpose. God gave in order to show his servant…–Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net————– Original message ————– From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> > > On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:09 PM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote: > > > hO QEOS is the subject because it is nominative and the angel > > belongs to the Father. IHSOU CHRISTOU is genitive so it cannot be > > the subject of the verb. > > > > — > > Kelton Graham > > KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net > > > > ————– Original message ————– > > From: “Beata Urbanek” > > > >> Dear List, > >> > >> Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS > >> DEIXAI TOIS > >> DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA > >> TOU AGGELOU > >> AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi > >> > >> > >> My question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO > >> QEOS because > >> it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it Jesus > >> Christ because > >> APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others? > >> Consequently, whose > >> AGGELOS is it? > >> > >> Beata Urbanek > >> > >> > > The subject of the verb ESHMANEN is ambiguous. The case of hO QEOS is > irrelevant since KAI in KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS introduces a new > clause. The semantic structure seems to point to IHSOUS CRISTOS as the > subject, since AUTWi in EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS is coreferential with > IHSOU CRISTOU who is the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU. > > > Elizabeth Kline > > > > > — > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Aug 14 15:54:21 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 On Aug 14, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> > Rev 1:1 APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS DEIXAI TOIS> DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU> AGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi> > On Aug 14, 2008, at 11:30 AM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:> >> Hello, but would’nt you see the KAI there linking the two clauses>> together?> > Not necessarily, KAI in the apocalypse is often used like vav in > hebrew.> > >> And secondly, I would not see IHSOU CHRISTOU as the subject of>> DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS because I would take the infinitive as>> modifying EDWKEN denoting purpose. God gave in order to show his>> servant…> > The christology of the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John clearly point> to IHSOUS CRISTOS as the agent of revelation and for that and other> reasons I would understand IHSOUS CRISTOS as the agent of DEIXAI TOIS> DOULOIS (plural!). So in the semantic structure of Rev 1:1 looking> backwards from KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS we find the most recent agent> is the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS.> > I am not saying the other readings are impossible.Moreover (not that this isn’t something unnoticed by others) this author is not the most careful and elegant Greek stylist among NT writers! (I’m well aware that there are some who think the solecisms are deliberate).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 14 15:32:08 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 Rev 1:1 APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHiOn Aug 14, 2008, at 11:30 AM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:> Hello, but would’nt you see the KAI there linking the two clauses > together?Not necessarily, KAI in the apocalypse is often used like vav in hebrew.> And secondly, I would not see IHSOU CHRISTOU as the subject of > DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS because I would take the infinitive as > modifying EDWKEN denoting purpose. God gave in order to show his > servant…The christology of the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John clearly point to IHSOUS CRISTOS as the agent of revelation and for that and other reasons I would understand IHSOUS CRISTOS as the agent of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS (plural!). So in the semantic structure of Rev 1:1 looking backwards from KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS we find the most recent agent is the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS.I am not saying the other readings are impossible.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Tom Moore tom at katabiblon.com
Thu Aug 14 16:01:45 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 If God gave the revelation for the purpose of himself showing, would it not have to be hINA + subjective (ἵνα δείξῃ)?With an infinitive, is another option possible here other than that God gave the revelation to Jesus in order for Jesus to show? (Smyth #2008, Infinitive of Purpose)Tom Moore> ——-Original Message——-> From: kgraham0938 at comcast.net> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> Sent: Aug 14 ’08 18:30> > Hello, but would’nt you see the KAI there linking the two clauses together?  Meaning that hO QEOS is the one who gave and the one who indicates?  And secondly, I would not see IHSOU CHRISTOU as the subject of  DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS  because I would take the infinitive as modifying EDWKEN denoting purpose.  God gave in order to show his servant…> —> Kelton Graham> KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net> > ————– Original message ————–> From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>> > >> > On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:09 PM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:> >> > > hO QEOS is the subject because it is nominative and the angel> > > belongs to the Father. IHSOU CHRISTOU is genitive so it cannot be> > > the subject of the verb.> > >> > > —> > > Kelton Graham> > > KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net> > >> > > ————– Original message ————–> > > From: “Beata Urbanek”> > >> > >> Dear List,> > >>> > >> Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS> > >> DEIXAI TOIS> > >> DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA> > >> TOU AGGELOU> > >> AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi> > >>> > >>> > >> My question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO> > >> QEOS because> > >> it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it Jesus> > >> Christ because> > >> APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others?> > >> Consequently, whose> > >> AGGELOS is it?> > >>> > >> Beata Urbanek> > >>> > >>> >> > The subject of the verb ESHMANEN is ambiguous. The case of hO QEOS is> > irrelevant since KAI in KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS introduces a new> > clause. The semantic structure seems to point to IHSOUS CRISTOS as the> > subject, since AUTWi in EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS is coreferential with> > IHSOU CRISTOU who is the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU.> >> >> > Elizabeth Kline> >> >> >> >> > —> > 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/>

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Aug 14 17:47:44 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 On Aug 14, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Tom Moore wrote:> If God gave the revelation for the purpose of himself showing, would > it not have to be hINA + subjective (ἵνα δείξῃ)?> > With an infinitive, is another option possible here other than that > God gave the revelation to Jesus in order for Jesus to show? (Smyth > #2008, Infinitive of Purpose)Precisely which alternative was intended is difficult to determine. This was one of the points I was trying to make in my previous post: I don’t think we can expect this author to conform to the ordinary standards of school Greek.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> >> ——-Original Message——->> From: kgraham0938 at comcast.net>> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1>> Sent: Aug 14 ’08 18:30>> >> Hello, but would’nt you see the KAI there linking the two clauses >> together? Meaning that hO QEOS is the one who gave and the one who >> indicates? And secondly, I would not see IHSOU CHRISTOU as the >> subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS because I would take the >> infinitive as modifying EDWKEN denoting purpose. God gave in order >> to show his servant…>> —>> Kelton Graham>> KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net>> >> ————– Original message ————–>> From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>>> >>> >>> On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:09 PM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:>>> >>>> hO QEOS is the subject because it is nominative and the angel>>>> belongs to the Father. IHSOU CHRISTOU is genitive so it cannot be>>>> the subject of the verb.>>>> >>>> —>>>> Kelton Graham>>>> KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net>>>> >>>> ————– Original message ————–>>>> From: “Beata Urbanek”>>>> >>>>> Dear List,>>>>> >>>>> Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS>>>>> DEIXAI TOIS>>>>> DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA>>>>> TOU AGGELOU>>>>> AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO>>>>> QEOS because>>>>> it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it Jesus>>>>> Christ because>>>>> APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others?>>>>> Consequently, whose>>>>> AGGELOS is it?>>>>> >>>>> Beata Urbanek>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> The subject of the verb ESHMANEN is ambiguous. The case of hO QEOS >>> is>>> irrelevant since KAI in KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS introduces a new>>> clause. The semantic structure seems to point to IHSOUS CRISTOS as >>> the>>> subject, since AUTWi in EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS is coreferential with>>> IHSOU CRISTOU who is the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU.>>> >>> >>> Elizabeth Kline>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> —>>> 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/

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 John Sanders john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
Fri Aug 15 02:03:03 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 Beata Urbanek,I would analyze this sentence in this fashion (not that I should be anauthority on such subjects or even considered knowledgeable, but this is mymethod):APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU is the topic that is being introduced (this is notto be considered as some form of linguistically nomenclature),hHN referring back to APOKALUYIS and introducing the followingEDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS which gives more information concerning the APOKALUYIS,DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU which is a continuation to the more informationgiven above,hA which references that just given which itself refers back to theAPOKALUYIS.DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI wich is giving us more information,KAI is quite often problematic in languages, because it can operate onseveral levels and our minds hold of making a judgement as to what is being”KAI”ed until we have further information,ESHMANEN is a verb, insufficient data as to what is being coordinated,APOSTEILAS the word that helped me place the level or coordination. We hadtwo possible subjects of this coordination, APOKALUYIS which is feminine andhO QEOS which is masculine. This sentence gives us a clear cut choice as towhat is being “KAI”ed. Since APOSTEILAS is masculine normative, my mindassociates it with hO QEOS and therefore, to answer your question, hO QEOSis ESHMANEN.As to whom the AUTOU of the phrase AGGELOU AUTOU referrs, I think that willbe a function of the common understanding that the readers have in therelationship between IHSOUS and QEOS. For my part, I did not and do notthink about the specacivity of ANGELLOS allocation, I just assume that whatis of IHSOUS is of QEOS and vice versa. You may have other ideas, thegrammar of the text will not be able to support one supposition fromanother.I apologize for the long and perhaps tedious accounting of my thoughtprocess, but I think that rather than attempting to go back over and parse asentence it is easier to develop, or at least to attempt to develop someform of intuitive association of the parts of the sentence as I read along.from :Dear List,Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS DEIXAI TOISDOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOUAGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHiMy question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO QEOSbecause it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it JesusChrist because APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others?Consequently, whose AGGELOS is it?– John SandersSuzhou, China

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 15 03:13:32 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] Accent Marks for eimi I tend to understand this passage as containing an account of a chain of custody which is designed to verify the authenticity of the contents.  .God –> Jesus –> his angel [messenger] –> John –> Churches.This is similar to the postscript of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. (2) Ταῦτα μετεγράψατο μὲν Γάϊος ἐκ τῶν Εἰρηναίου, μαθητοῦ τοῦ Πολυκάρπου, ὃς καὶ συνεπολιτεύσατο τῷ Εἰρηναίῳ. ἐγὼ δὲ Σωκράτης ἐν Κορίνθῳ ἐκ τῶν Γαΐου ἀντιγράφων ἔγραψα. ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων.(3) Ἐγὼ δὲ πάλιν Πιόνιος ἐκ τοῦ προγεγραμμένου ἔγραψα ἀναζητήσας αὐτά, κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν φανερώσαντός μοι τοῦ μακαρίου Πολυκάρπου, καθὼς δηλώσω ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς, συναγαγὼν αὐτὰ ἤδη σχεδὸν ἐκ τοῦ χρόνου κεκμηκότα, ἵνα κἀμὲ συναγάγῃ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς μετὰ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν οὐράνιον βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα σὺν πατρι καὶ ἁγίω πνεύματι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν..Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (244). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books..(2) TAUTA METEGRAYATO MEN GAIOS EK TWN EIRHNAIOU, MAQHTOU TOU POLUKARPOU, hOS KAI SUNEPOLITEUSATO TWi EIRHNAIWi, EGW DE SWKRATHS EN KORINQWi EK TWN GAIOU ANTIGRAFWN EGRAYA.  hH XARIS META PANTWN..(3) EGW DE PALIN PIONIOS EK TOU PRGEGRAMMENOU EGRAYA ANAZHTHSAS AUTA, KATA APOKALUYIN FANERWSANTOS MOI TOU MAKARIOU POLUKARPOU, KAQWS DHLWSW EN TWi KAQECHS, SUNAGAGWN AUTA HDH SXEDON EK TOU XRONOU KEKMHKOTA, hINA KA’ME SUNAGAGHi hO KURIOS IHSOUS XRISTOS META TWN EKLEKTWN AUTOU EIS THN OURANION BASILEIAN AUTOU, hWi hH DOCA SUN PATRI KAI hAGIW PNEUMATI EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN, AMHN.. georgegfsomsel.… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death..- Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: John Sanders <john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:03:03 AMSubject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1Beata Urbanek,I would analyze this sentence in this fashion (not that I should be anauthority on such subjects or even considered knowledgeable, but this is mymethod):APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU is the topic that is being introduced (this is notto be considered as some form of linguistically nomenclature),hHN referring back to APOKALUYIS and introducing the followingEDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS which gives more information concerning the APOKALUYIS,DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU which is a continuation to the more informationgiven above,hA which references that just given which itself refers back to theAPOKALUYIS.DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI wich is giving us more information,KAI is quite often problematic in languages, because it can operate onseveral levels and our minds hold of making a judgement as to what is being”KAI”ed until we have further information,ESHMANEN is a verb, insufficient data as to what is being coordinated,APOSTEILAS the word that helped me place the level or coordination.  We hadtwo possible subjects of this coordination, APOKALUYIS which is feminine andhO QEOS which is masculine.  This sentence gives us a clear cut choice as towhat is being “KAI”ed.  Since APOSTEILAS is masculine normative, my mindassociates it with hO QEOS and therefore, to answer your question, hO QEOSis ESHMANEN.As to whom the AUTOU of the phrase AGGELOU AUTOU referrs, I think that willbe a function of the common understanding that the readers have in therelationship between IHSOUS and QEOS.  For my part, I did not and do notthink about the specacivity of ANGELLOS allocation, I just assume that whatis of IHSOUS is of QEOS and vice versa.  You may have other ideas, thegrammar of the text will not be able to support one supposition fromanother.I apologize for the long and perhaps tedious accounting of my thoughtprocess, but I think that rather than attempting to go back over and parse asentence it is easier to develop, or at least to attempt to develop someform of intuitive association of the parts of the sentence as I read along.from :Dear List,Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS DEIXAI TOISDOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOUAGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHiMy question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO QEOSbecause it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or is it JesusChrist because APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can give it to others?Consequently, whose AGGELOS is it?– John SandersSuzhou, China— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] Accent Marks for eimi

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Aug 15 06:21:24 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 On Aug 13, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Beata Urbanek wrote:> Dear List,> > Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS > DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN > APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi> > > My question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO > QEOS because it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or > is it Jesus Christ because APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can > give it to others? Consequently, whose AGGELOS is it?On Aug 15, 2008, at 2:03 AM, John Sanders wrote:> As to whom the AUTOU of the phrase AGGELOU AUTOU referrs, I think > that will> be a function of the common understanding that the readers have in the> relationship between IHSOUS and QEOS. For my part, I did not and do > not> think about the specificity of ANGELOS allocation, I just assume > that what> is of IHSOUS is of QEOS and vice versa. You may have other ideas, the> grammar of the text will not be able to support one supposition from> another.> > I apologize for the long and perhaps tedious accounting of my thought> process, but I think that rather than attempting to go back over and > parse a> sentence it is easier to develop, or at least to attempt to develop > some> form of intuitive association of the parts of the sentence as I read > along.Rev. 1:1 Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ,When I first saw Beata’s question a couple days ago, I started to write out a response; halfway through that response I decided to abort it on grounds that there are no really satisfying — wholly convincing — reasons for establishing the exact subject of the antecedents ἐσήμανεν ESHMANEN or the exact antecedent of any of the three genitive singular pronouns αὐτοῦ AUTOU. A more careful formulation by the author of this work might have obviated this ambiguity of WHO sent the revelation to WHOSE servants through the agency of WHOSE angel to WHOSE servant. I’ve read this opening sentence of Revelation countless times and often enough puzzled over who or what belonged to whom without ever coming to any satisfying resolution. Now it’s occurred to me to attempt a reasonable analogical formulation:”Here’s the baseball bat that a father gave his son to show to his friends; he marked it before dispatching it through his courier to George, his secretary.”How much information does this sentence give about the persons involved in this “delivery”?WHOSE friends were to see the baseball bat? Was it the father or the son who marked the bat and sent it off? WHOSE courier carried the bat to George? WHOSE secretary was George?I think an ordinary reader may assume that the father wanted his SON’s friends to see the bat, that it was the father who marked the bat and sent it off, that it was the father’s courier who carried the bat to its destination, and that George was the father’s secretary. We’re not told, however, whether the son is a little boy or a forty-year-old baseball enthusiast who happens to be a business executive in a large firm. It would appear that neither author — the one who penned the opening verse of Revelation or the one who wrote about the baseball bat — has assimilated or applied the classic journalistic lesson about giving clear answers to the five “W” questions. And I think that John Sanders is right on target when he writes, “You may have other ideas; the grammar of the text will not be able to support one supposition from another.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Aug 15 11:49:57 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>Cc: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>; “John Sanders” <john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com>Sent: 15. august 2008 13:21Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> On Aug 13, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Beata Urbanek wrote:> >> Dear List,>> >> Rev 1:1 says: APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS>> DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN>> APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi>> >> >> My question is: what is the subject of the verb ESHMANEN? Is it hO>> QEOS because it is the nearest possible noun and in nominative? Or>> is it Jesus Christ because APOKALUYIS was given to him and he can>> give it to others? Consequently, whose AGGELOS is it?> > Rev. 1:1 Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν> ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς> δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν> τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ> τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ> Ἰωάννῃ,[CC:]> “Here’s the baseball bat that a father gave his son to show to his> friends …Several have already commented, and I am not going to add much.Tom Moore pointed out that the implied subject of the infinitive DEIXAI ought to be the same as AUTWi, that is Jesus.Even in Carl’s example, when a father gives a bat to his son to show to his friends, it is understood that it is the son who is going to show the bat to his friends. This is a logical deduction partly from the object “his son” (or him), partly from the meaning of “give”. Once it has been given to the son, it is in his possession and therefore he is the one to show it to his friends.Likewise, God gave AUTWi (Jesus) something for him to show to his (Jesus’) servants.Another point is the common Hebrew circular or overlapping thought pattern where the second clause elaborates on the first. ESHMANEN is semantically overlapping with DEIXAI and therefore has the same semantic agent, especially since the recipients are also overlapping: TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU and TWi DOULWi AUTOU.And as Vasile ESHMAMEN/EDEIXEN earlier, Rev 22:16 makes it clear that Jesus is the intended subject in 1:1 also:EGW, IHSOUS, EPEMYA TON AGGELON MOU MARTURHSAI hUMIN TAUTA.Iver Larsen

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at verizon.net
Fri Aug 15 14:28:01 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 Just a quick response to Carl’s comment on the solecisms. Aside from the theological issues, which are rightly off limits here, it seems to me that John’s solecisms are sufficiently violent that we would expect to find Revelation riddled with many others, if the comparatively few that we do find were not deliberate. It’s the old story: you have to know the rules to (deliberately) break the rules. If John really didn’t know better, then it’s a minor miracle that he could write coherent Greek overall.Don WilkinsOn Aug 14, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Carl Conrad wrote:> > On Aug 14, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> >> >> Rev 1:1 APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS DEIXAI >> TOIS>> DOULOIS AUTOU hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA >> TOU>> AGGELOU AUTOU TWi DOULWi AUTOU IWANNHi>> >> On Aug 14, 2008, at 11:30 AM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:>> >>> Hello, but would’nt you see the KAI there linking the two clauses>>> together?>> >> Not necessarily, KAI in the apocalypse is often used like vav in>> hebrew.>> >> >>> And secondly, I would not see IHSOU CHRISTOU as the subject of>>> DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS because I would take the infinitive as>>> modifying EDWKEN denoting purpose. God gave in order to show his>>> servant…>> >> The christology of the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John clearly >> point>> to IHSOUS CRISTOS as the agent of revelation and for that and other>> reasons I would understand IHSOUS CRISTOS as the agent of DEIXAI TOIS>> DOULOIS (plural!). So in the semantic structure of Rev 1:1 looking>> backwards from KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS we find the most recent agent>> is the subject of DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS.>> >> I am not saying the other readings are impossible.> > Moreover (not that this isn’t something unnoticed by others) this> author is not the most careful and elegant Greek stylist among NT> writers! (I’m well aware that there are some who think the solecisms> are deliberate).> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Vasile Stancu stancu at mail.dnttm.ro
Fri Aug 15 20:39:19 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 The angel in 22:6 appears to be one of the seven angels in 21:9, which isnot necessarily the one mentioned in 1:1.Vasile—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver LarsenSent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 2:41 PMTo: Oun Kwon; Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1—– Original Message —– From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>To: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 16. august 2008 08:16Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> > Concerning ‘His messenger’. It says Jesus sending His messenger to the> congregations in 22:16 as Iver pointed out.> > However, I find another verse 22:6 which reads ‘The Lord, the God of> the spirits of the prophets sent His angel froth to show His servant> the things that must take place quickly.’> > I’m not sure how to reconcile both verses in relation to 1:1.> > Oun.Since both hO KURIOS and hO QEOS can refer to either God Almighty or Jesusin Revelation, the reference in 22:6 is ambiguous. Rev. often disambiguates by adding hOPANTOKRATHR if God Almighty is in view. Here, the context indicates that the reference is Jesus as the Lordand the God (master over) the spirits of the prophets.Iver Larsen — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sat Aug 16 00:33:50 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 2008/8/15 Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>:> —– Original Message —–> From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>> To: “Beata Urbanek” <beata.urbanek at op.pl>> Cc: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>; “John Sanders” <john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com>> Sent: 15. august 2008 13:21> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> > Several have already commented, and I am not going to add much.> Tom Moore pointed out that the implied subject of the infinitive DEIXAIought to be the same as> AUTWi, that is Jesus.> Even in Carl’s example, when a father gives a bat to his son to show tohis friends, it is> understood that it is the son who is going to show the bat to his friends.This is a logical> deduction partly from the object “his son” (or him), partly from themeaning of “give”. Once it has> been given to the son, it is in his possession and therefore he is the oneto show it to his> friends.> > Likewise, God gave AUTWi (Jesus) something for him to show to his (Jesus’)servants.> > Another point is the common Hebrew circular or overlapping thought patternwhere the second clause> elaborates on the first. ESHMANEN is semantically overlapping with DEIXAIand therefore has the same> semantic agent, especially since the recipients are also overlapping: TOISDOULOIS AUTOU and TWi> DOULWi AUTOU.> > And as Vasile ESHMAMEN/EDEIXEN earlier, Rev 22:16 makes it clear thatJesus is the intended subject> in 1:1 also:> EGW, IHSOUS, EPEMYA TON AGGELON MOU MARTURHSAI hUMIN TAUTA.> > Iver Larsen> > Pardon to add a layman’s viewpoint.I think a key to clarify the agents of the verbs is to take the first halfof the verse 1:1a as the title. (From APOKALUYIS to TACEI). Then try toidentify those clauses subordinating to the main flow of the text to be putinto the parenthesis.Copying the text again, it looks like this.1:1a * *APOKALUYIS* *IHSOU CRISTOU (hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS) * DEIXAI* TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU (hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI)1:1 b KAI *ESHMANEN * *(APOSTEILAS* DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU) TWi DOULWi AUTOU (IWANNHi)Then the thing following seems to unfold with less ambiguity.Taking APOKALUYIS IHSOU as ‘Revelation by Jesus’, after the title isdeclared, we expect the narrative to go on saying *what and how Jesusreveals*. This is what we are presented in detail with 1:1b. Here introducedby a conjuctional KAI (working at the level of discourse) comes aESHMANEN-clause. Thus Revealing (by Jesus from God) = Showing with signs (byJesus).Then in 1:1b, the subject of ESHMANEN is Jesus. Jesus is also the subject ofAPOSTEILAS. AGGELOU AUTOU is Jesus’ messenger. DOULWi AUTOU is Jesus’servant.Now, going back to the 1:1a. The clause hHN EDWKEN AUTWi hO QEOS isthought of parenthetical to describe APOKALUYIS. This AUTW (Jesus) in thisclause is picked up as the subject of the next verb DEIXAI. ThisDEIXAI-clause explains *why Jesus reveals*. Again, here DOULOIS AUTO isJesus’ servants.My conclusion, then, is like Iver’s. In the whole verse, EDWKEN is the onlyveb taking God as the subject in a parenthetical clause. ‘Of Him’ is ‘ofJesus’ through out the verse.I hope I have made my points clear enough to be followed without ambiguity.Oun Kwon.

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1
[] subject in Rev 1:1 Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sat Aug 16 01:16:34 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com> wrote:> > <clipped>> My conclusion, then, is like Iver’s. In the whole verse, EDWKEN is the only veb taking God as the subject in a parenthetical clause. ‘Of Him’ is ‘of Jesus’ through out the verse.> Concerning ‘His messenger’. It says Jesus sending His messenger to thecongregations in 22:16 as Iver pointed out.However, I find another verse 22:6 which reads ‘The Lord, the God ofthe spirits of the prophets sent His angel froth to show His servantthe things that must take place quickly.’I’m not sure how to reconcile both verses in relation to 1:1.Oun.

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Aug 16 01:41:27 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 —– Original Message —– From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>To: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 16. august 2008 08:16Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> > Concerning ‘His messenger’. It says Jesus sending His messenger to the> congregations in 22:16 as Iver pointed out.> > However, I find another verse 22:6 which reads ‘The Lord, the God of> the spirits of the prophets sent His angel froth to show His servant> the things that must take place quickly.’> > I’m not sure how to reconcile both verses in relation to 1:1.> > Oun.Since both hO KURIOS and hO QEOS can refer to either God Almighty or Jesus in Revelation, the reference in 22:6 is ambiguous. Rev. often disambiguates by adding hO PANTOKRATHR if God Almighty is in view. Here, the context indicates that the reference is Jesus as the Lord and the God (master over) the spirits of the prophets.Iver Larsen

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Aug 16 06:43:21 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] subject in Rev 1:1 On Aug 15, 2008, at 8:39 PM, Vasile Stancu wrote:> The angel in 22:6 appears to be one of the seven angels in 21:9, > which is> not necessarily the one mentioned in 1:1.> Vasile> > —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver Larsen> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 2:41 PM> To: Oun Kwon; > Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> > —– Original Message —–> From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>> To: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 16. august 2008 08:16> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> > >> >> Concerning ‘His messenger’. It says Jesus sending His messenger to >> the>> congregations in 22:16 as Iver pointed out.>> >> However, I find another verse 22:6 which reads ‘The Lord, the God of>> the spirits of the prophets sent His angel froth to show His servant>> the things that must take place quickly.’>> >> I’m not sure how to reconcile both verses in relation to 1:1.>> >> Oun.> > Since both hO KURIOS and hO QEOS can refer to either God Almighty or > Jesus> in Revelation, the> reference in 22:6 is ambiguous. Rev. often disambiguates by adding hO> PANTOKRATHR if God Almighty is> in view. Here, the context indicates that the reference is Jesus as > the Lord> and the God (master> over) the spirits of the prophets.In other words, the differentiation between God and Jesus in Revelation is clear — sometimes –, and when it’s not, it doesn’t matter.And the solecisms of the author of Revelation should be understood as clear indications that a master stylist is at work here. Were it not so, this book wouldn’t be so easy to understand (in the Greek text, that is).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Edgar Foster edgarfoster2003 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 16 16:13:52 EDT 2008

 

[] Accent Marks for eimi [] subject in Rev 1:1 Dear Iver,I’ve always found Revelation 22:6, 16 to be two interesting verses. Is Jesus the hO KURIOS, hO QEOS TWN PNEUMATWN TWN PROFHTWN of Revelation 22:6?The context of the passage certainly allows for Jesus being identified as the “Lord God” in Revelation 22:6, but one thing that strikes me as I read what leads up to the proclamation under discussion here is Revelation 21:22:καὶ ναὸν οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ, ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον [KAI NAON EIDON EN AUTH hO GAR hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR NAOS AUTHS ESTIN KAI TO ARNION].Also, we have Revelation 22:5:καὶ νὺξ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν χρείαν φωτὸς λύχνου καὶ φωτὸς ἡλίου, ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς φωτιεῖ ἐπ’ αὐτούς, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων [KAI NUX OUK ESTAI ETI KAI OUK ECOUSIN CREIAN FWTOS LUCNOU KAI FWTOS hHLIOU hOTI KURIOS hO QEOS FWTIEI EP’ AUTOUS KAI BASILEUSOUSIN EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN].In the first text, the distinction that the writer of the Apocalypse makes between TO ARNION and “the Lord God Almighty” seems fairly clear. In the second text, the referent of the words KURIOS hO QEOS may seem more questionable. But it would not seem unreasonable to perceive a nexus between the Lord God of Revelation 22:5 and hO KURIOS, hO QEOS TWN PNEUMATWN TWN PROFHTWN of v. 6.J. Ramsey Michaels (Revelation, page 250) views the language of Revelation 22:6 as an echo of Revelation 1:1: he thinks that Jesus will show HIS servants what will shortly transpire (p. 48). I tend to believe that God the Father is the referent of Revelation 22:6 and that God’s servants are under discussion in Revelation 1:1.Regards,Edgar Foster— On Sat, 8/16/08, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> To: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>, ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Date: Saturday, August 16, 2008, 1:41 AM> —– Original Message —– > From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>> To: ” “> < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 16. august 2008 08:16> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> > > >> > Concerning ‘His messenger’. It says Jesus> sending His messenger to the> > congregations in 22:16 as Iver pointed out.> >> > However, I find another verse 22:6 which reads> ‘The Lord, the God of> > the spirits of the prophets sent His angel froth to> show His servant> > the things that must take place quickly.’> >> > I’m not sure how to reconcile both verses in> relation to 1:1.> >> > Oun.> > Since both hO KURIOS and hO QEOS can refer to either God> Almighty or Jesus in Revelation, the > reference in 22:6 is ambiguous. Rev. often disambiguates by> adding hO PANTOKRATHR if God Almighty is > in view. Here, the context indicates that the reference is> Jesus as the Lord and the God (master > over) the spirits of the prophets.> > Iver Larsen > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Accent Marks for eimi[] subject in Rev 1:1

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Beata Urbanek beata.urbanek at op.pl
Mon Aug 18 14:10:45 EDT 2008

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1 [] Accents – who is responsible? Thanks for all your answers.I intend to go through the whole of the book, so you may hear from me soon.Beata Urbanek—– Original Message —– From: “Edgar Foster” <edgarfoster2003 at yahoo.com>To: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>; ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>; “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 10:13 PMSubject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> Dear Iver,> > I’ve always found Revelation 22:6, 16 to be two interesting verses. Is > Jesus the hO KURIOS, hO QEOS TWN PNEUMATWN TWN PROFHTWN of Revelation > 22:6?> > The context of the passage certainly allows for Jesus being identified as > the “Lord God” in Revelation 22:6, but one thing that strikes me as I read > what leads up to the proclamation under discussion here is Revelation > 21:22:> > καὶ ναὸν οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ, ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς > ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον [KAI NAON EIDON EN AUTH hO GAR hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR > NAOS AUTHS ESTIN KAI TO ARNION].> > Also, we have Revelation 22:5:> > καὶ νὺξ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν χρείαν φωτὸς λύχνου καὶ φωτὸς > ἡλίου, ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς φωτιεῖ ἐπ’ αὐτούς, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν εἰς τοὺς > αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων [KAI NUX OUK ESTAI ETI KAI OUK ECOUSIN CREIAN FWTOS > LUCNOU KAI FWTOS hHLIOU hOTI KURIOS hO QEOS FWTIEI EP’ AUTOUS KAI > BASILEUSOUSIN EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN].> > In the first text, the distinction that the writer of the Apocalypse makes > between TO ARNION and “the Lord God Almighty” seems fairly clear. In the > second text, the referent of the words KURIOS hO QEOS may seem more > questionable. But it would not seem unreasonable to perceive a nexus > between the Lord God of Revelation 22:5 and hO KURIOS, hO QEOS TWN > PNEUMATWN TWN PROFHTWN of v. 6.> > J. Ramsey Michaels (Revelation, page 250) views the language of Revelation > 22:6 as an echo of Revelation 1:1: he thinks that Jesus will show HIS > servants what will shortly transpire (p. 48). I tend to believe that God > the Father is the referent of Revelation 22:6 and that God’s servants are > under discussion in Revelation 1:1.> > Regards,> Edgar Foster> > — On Sat, 8/16/08, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> >> From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>>> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1>> To: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>, ” ” >> < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Date: Saturday, August 16, 2008, 1:41 AM>> —– Original Message —– >> From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>>> To: ” “>> < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: 16. august 2008 08:16>> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1>> >> >> >>> > Concerning ‘His messenger’. It says Jesus>> sending His messenger to the>> > congregations in 22:16 as Iver pointed out.>> >>> > However, I find another verse 22:6 which reads>> ‘The Lord, the God of>> > the spirits of the prophets sent His angel froth to>> show His servant>> > the things that must take place quickly.’>> >>> > I’m not sure how to reconcile both verses in>> relation to 1:1.>> >>> > Oun.>> >> Since both hO KURIOS and hO QEOS can refer to either God>> Almighty or Jesus in Revelation, the>> reference in 22:6 is ambiguous. Rev. often disambiguates by>> adding hO PANTOKRATHR if God Almighty is>> in view. Here, the context indicates that the reference is>> Jesus as the Lord and the God (master>> over) the spirits of the prophets.>> >> Iver Larsen>> >> —>> 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/>

 

[] subject in Rev 1:1[] Accents – who is responsible?

[] subject in Rev 1:1 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Mar 7 10:09:51 EST 2009

 

[] PDF available of annotated readings from severalperiodsof Greek? [] Death by categories On Aug 15, 2008, at 8:39 PM, Vasile Stancu wrote:> The angel in 22:6 appears to be one of the seven angels in 21:9, > which is> not necessarily the one mentioned in 1:1.> Vasile> > —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver Larsen> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 2:41 PM> To: Oun Kwon; > Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> > —– Original Message —–> From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>> To: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 16. august 2008 08:16> Subject: Re: [] subject in Rev 1:1> > >> >> Concerning ‘His messenger’. It says Jesus sending His messenger to >> the>> congregations in 22:16 as Iver pointed out.>> >> However, I find another verse 22:6 which reads ‘The Lord, the God of>> the spirits of the prophets sent His angel froth to show His servant>> the things that must take place quickly.’>> >> I’m not sure how to reconcile both verses in relation to 1:1.>> >> Oun.> > Since both hO KURIOS and hO QEOS can refer to either God Almighty or > Jesus> in Revelation, the> reference in 22:6 is ambiguous. Rev. often disambiguates by adding hO> PANTOKRATHR if God Almighty is> in view. Here, the context indicates that the reference is Jesus as > the Lord> and the God (master> over) the spirits of the prophets.In other words, these differentiations are clear — sometimes. And when they are not clear, it doesn’t really matter.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] PDF available of annotated readings from severalperiodsof Greek?[] Death by categories