Revelation 16:19

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city Robert Dee rdee at coastalnow.net
Mon Dec 26 16:24:11 EST 2005

 

[] Interlinear Greek-English NT [] Revelation 16:19 – the great city My question is concerning Revelation 16:19. (I am not enrolled anywhere as a student of Greek, by the way.)Grammatically speaking, are “the great city,” in this verse, and “Babylon the Great” two seperate entities?That is, would someone reading this in Greek get the idea that John was referring to two different entitesbefore he did any additional research? Or, is there something here in Rev 16:19 itself that gives an indicationthat both of these are the same?I know many commentaries say these are the same, often pointing to Rev. 17:18. But Rev 11:8 also refers to a “great city.” (Unless, of course, one views Rev 11:8 and 17:18 as the same city.) Incidentally,a footnote to this verse in the Ronald Knox translation reads: ” ‘The Great City’ may be Jerusalem (11:8); butmany commentators understand a double reference in this verse to Babylon, that is, Rome.”By the way, a similar question was posted in Jul, 1996, but no response was given in the BGreek forum.I have tried to phrase this to stay within the parameters of this list. My apologies if I went to far.Thank you very much in advance for your kind expertise.Robert

 

[] Interlinear Greek-English NT[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city Otto Erlend Nordgreen o.e.nordgreen at ilos.uio.no
Mon Dec 26 19:17:17 EST 2005

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city [] Revelation 16:19 – the great city Dear Robert Dee,You wrote:>Grammatically speaking, are “the great city,” in this verse, and “Babylon >the Great” two seperate entities? That is, would someone reading this in >Greek get the idea that John was referring to two different entites before >he did any additional research? Or, is there something here in Rev 16:19 >itself that gives an indication that both of these are the same?According to J.-P. Ruiz: _Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16, 17–19, 10_. (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1987), this would indeed be a possible interpretation.Ruiz has been followed by Rissi (in his monograph on “Babylon the great”) and, more recently, Jauhiainen (in his study of the use of Zechariah in the Apocalypse).Hope this helps!Best regardsO. E. Nordgreen

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Mon Dec 26 19:47:51 EST 2005

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city [] Tischendorf 8th with morphology and lemmatization:Version 1.2 released On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:24:11 -0500 “Robert Dee” <rdee at coastalnow.net>writes:> My question is concerning Revelation 16:19. (I am not enrolled > anywhere as a student of Greek, by the way.)> > Grammatically speaking, are “the great city,” in this verse, and > “Babylon the Great” two seperate entities?> That is, would someone reading this in Greek get the idea that John > was referring to two different entites> before he did any additional research? Or, is there something here > in Rev 16:19 itself that gives an indication> that both of these are the same?> > I know many commentaries say these are the same, often pointing to > Rev. 17:18. But Rev 11:8 also > refers to a “great city.” (Unless, of course, one views Rev 11:8 and > 17:18 as the same city.) Incidentally,> a footnote to this verse in the Ronald Knox translation reads: ” > ‘The Great City’ may be Jerusalem (11:8); but> many commentators understand a double reference in this verse to > Babylon, that is, Rome.”> > By the way, a similar question was posted in Jul, 1996, but no > response was given in the BGreek forum.> > I have tried to phrase this to stay within the parameters of this > list. My apologies if I went to far.> Thank you very much in advance for your kind expertise.> Robert____________KAI EGENETO hH POLIS hH MEGALH EIS TRIA MERH KAI hAI POLEIS TWN EQNWNEPESAN. KAI BABULWN hH MEGALH EMNHSQH ENWPION TOU QEOU DOUNAI AUTHi TOPOTHRION TOU OINOU TOU QUMOU THS ORGHS AUTOU.Given the repeated and pointed use of the adjective MEGAS with respect toboth BABULWN and with respect to POLIS seems specifically designed tounite the two expressions. I would see no alternative to identifying thetwo as referencing the same subject. Moreover, the use of the articlewith POLIS would seem to indicate that the author of the Apocalypse isreferencing a known quantity. I see no other alternative to this beinga reference to Babylon. The only other “city” specifically mentioned inthe Apocalypse is the “New Jerusalem” (Excluding the cities of the sevenchurches themselves which are mentioned in identifying the churches). The adjective MEGAS seems never to be used with regard to the NewJerusalem but is used repeated in reference to Babylon. georgegfsomsel___________

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city[] Tischendorf 8th with morphology and lemmatization:Version 1.2 released

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city Marko Jauhiainen mark at tpu.fi
Tue Dec 27 02:49:47 EST 2005

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city [] Revelation 16:19 – the great city On 27.12.2005 02:17, Otto Erlend Nordgreen wrote:>> Grammatically speaking, are “the great city,” in this verse, and “Babylon >> the Great” two seperate entities? That is, would someone reading this in >> Greek get the idea that John was referring to two different entites before >> he did any additional research? Or, is there something here in Rev 16:19 >> itself that gives an indication that both of these are the same?> > According to J.-P. Ruiz: _Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of > Prophetic Language in Revelation 16, 17–19, 10_. (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter > Lang, 1987), this would indeed be a possible interpretation.> > Ruiz has been followed by Rissi (in his monograph on “Babylon the great”) > and, more recently, Jauhiainen (in his study of the use of Zechariah in the > Apocalypse).Just a clarification: Ruiz argues that there is a transition of reference with regard to the “great city” in Revelation (i.e., it sometimes refers to Rome, and sometimes to Jerusalem) and that in 16:19 it indeed refers to Rome.I, on the other hand, place a bit more weight on the possibility that “the great city” and “Babylon the Great” are different entities. However, the issue cannot be settled on the basis of the structure of the Greek sentence alone, IMHO.Marko Jauhiainen

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Tue Dec 27 03:15:46 EST 2005

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city [] Revelation 16:19 – the great city > My question is concerning Revelation 16:19. (I am not enrolled anywhere as a student of Greek, by the way.)> Grammatically speaking, are “the great city,” in this verse, and “Babylon the Great” two seperate entities?Grammatically speaking, you cannot tell, and the author does not expect you to be able to tell from the grammar alone.> That is, would someone reading this in Greek get the idea that John was referring to two different entitles> before he did any additional research?That depends on who this someone is. If the person is familiar with the content and language of revelation, includingthe common Hebraic overlap structure, it is very clear that “the great city” and “the great Babylon” in the nextsentence refer to the same city.> I know many commentaries say these are the same, often pointing to Rev. 17:18. But Rev 11:8 also> refers to a “great city.”In the following context of Revelation, the “great city” is repeatedly identified with Babylon, so that is a strongcontextual argument, since that is how the author often refers to Babylon.> In a footnote to this verse in the Ronald Knox translation reads: ” ‘The Great City’ may be Jerusalem (11:8); but> many commentators understand a double reference in this verse to Babylon, that is, Rome.”The city mentioned in 11:2,8 and 13 is clearly marked as Jerusalem. In v. 2 it is called the “holy city” and in v. 8 itis the “city where their Lord was crucified”. Cohesion requires that the city in v. 13 is still the same city.Otto Nordgreen mentioned a couple of commentators who apparently try to identify the city in 16:19 with Jerusalem basedon passages in Ezekiel and Zechariah. If this is the case, then it would be an example of a serious mistake inexegetical method, which unfortunately is too common to ignore. The mistake is to go searching for potential “answers”in far away contexts, when the immediate context of the book itself makes the question abundantly clear. Immediatecontext always has priority over distant context.Hughes suggests a third option as follows, and because of that identifies the two “cities” in 11:8 and 16:9. He says:”The great city, where the corpses of the witnesses are exposed to the public gaze, should not be taken to mean some particular geographical location or metropolis. It denotes, rather, the worldwide structure of unbelief and defiance against God.”I don’t accept this interpretation, but won’t go into details.I had to go beyond Greek grammar itself and move into exegesis, because the question could not be answered from grammaralone.Iver LarsenTranslation consultant

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city Robert Dee rdee at coastalnow.net
Tue Dec 27 08:23:32 EST 2005

 

[] Athenaze Teacher’s Handbook [] Revelation 16:19 – the great city I express my thanks to all for their considered comments on Revelation 16:19 and “the great city.”Marko Jauhiainen (and others) expressed the thought (in various ways) that “the issue cannot be settled on the basis of the structure of the Greek sentence alone.” And that was one of themain things I was trying to find out.Permit me to extend the question a little bit.Note the use of KAI throughout vss.19-21. Apparently, “the great earthquake” in verse 18 is themajor event, with the events of 19-21 describing what happens during that ‘quake.’ And, in eachcase, the individual events are begun with KAI. WE Vine (just as one example), says that KAI is “chiefly used for connecting words, clauses andsentences.” But he also gives examples of other uses. One in particular is the “epexegetic or explanatory use.” (All basic stuff, to be sure)In verses 19-21, all of the other events (besides the remembering of Babylon) are clearly seperateevents. And thus, the KAI, which begins the description of each, would seem to be strictly in theconjunctive sense. In fact, to my (admittedly inexperienced) view, the whole account in verses 19-21looks not unlike a ‘laundry or shopping list,’ with each seperate item connected to the list with “and” [KAI].If one wishes to say that Babylon and “the great city” in verse 19 were the same, would he have to hold that the KAI before Babylon was epexegetic? And, if it was explanatory of what happens to “the great city,” why would John place it after the statement about the “cities of the nations,” and not after the ‘splitting of the great city,’ where it would make more sense as an eplanatory phraseof what happened to that “great city”?(Of course, one could bypass these questions about KAI by saying that the ‘splitting of the great city’and ‘God remembering Babylon,’ were two seperate events happening to the same city. But thatwould, of necessity, reduce the symbolic [read emphatic] force of the “three” in the splitting of “the great city.” In effect, either God would be giving a cup of wrath to an already dead city, or ‘being split into three parts’ is not as bad as it sounds.)I hope I haven’t crossed the line from Greek to exegesis, although, a certain amount of contextualdiscussion is necessary when commenting on the use of KAI. I am trying to keep it within the bounds of the immediate context.I thank all of you again for your valued thoughts.Robert J. Deerdee at coastalnow.netWalthourville, Ga, USA

 

[] Athenaze Teacher’s Handbook[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city Otto Erlend Nordgreen o.e.nordgreen at ilos.uio.no
Wed Dec 28 18:01:48 EST 2005

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city [] Revelation 16:19 – the great city Dear Marko Jauhiainen,You wrote:>Just a clarification: Ruiz argues that there is a transition of>reference with regard to the “great city” in Revelation (i.e., it>sometimes refers to Rome, and sometimes to Jerusalem) and that in 16:19>it indeed refers to Rome.Many thanks for your input.This is what Ruiz writes regarding “the great city” (in Rev 16:19):”Contrary to the opinion of the majority of commentators, the data presented above indicate that [hH POLIS hH MEGALH] in 16,19 refers to Jerusalem. Further, [hAI POLEIS TWN EQNWN] () are contrated with “the Great City,” which is _Jerusalem_ in this verse. For [BABULWN hH MEGALH], the contemporary historical identification as Rome remains beyond dispute” (p. 282, cf. “Table 12” on p. 284)Thus, it would seem to me that Ruiz does in fact identify “the great city” in Rev 16:19a with Jerusalem, not Rome.You also wrote:>I, on the other hand, place a bit more weight on the possibility that>“the great city” and “Babylon the Great” are different entities.>However, the issue cannot be settled on the basis of the structure of>the Greek sentence alone, IMHO.I am sure you have a point. (I also would like to say that your study is excellent; I am currently reviewing it and I am very much impressed!)Best regardsOtto E. Nordgreen—————————————————-Otto Erlend NordgreenE-mail: otton at ilos.uio.no—————————————————-

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city L. Harris ljoharris at ckt.net
Thu Dec 29 14:39:56 EST 2005

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city [] Interlinear Greek-English NT Regarding the many usages of the word KAI, there is a name for that called “POLUSUNDETON”. The Greeks developed a science called “SCHEMA”, which the Latins carried on with called “Figura” and which come to us as “figures of speech”. E.W. Bullinger in his book Figures of Speech used in the Bible states:”All language is governed by law; but, in order to increase the power of a word, or the force of an expression, these laws are designedly departed from, and words and sentences are thrown into and used in new forms, or figures. The ancient Greeks reduced these new and peculiar forms to science, and gave names to more than two hundred of them”….the knowledge of this ancient science is is so completely forgotten, that its very name to-day is used in a differnet sense and whith almot an opposite meaning.”One such usage of a Greek Figure or SCHEMA” is POLUSUNDETON and means MANY ANDS (KAI) and is described by Bullinger as:The repetition of the word “and” at the beginning of successive clauses. Polysyndeton. Greek, POLUSUNDETON, from POLUS, many and SUNDETON, bound together; hence, in grammar, it means a conjunction. The word, therefore, means ‘much bound together’ or ‘many conjunctions’. It is also called POLYSYNTHETON, from TITHEEMI,to put or place. Hence ‘many puttings: i.e., of the same word – at the beginning f successive sentences: but his is always one special word “AND”, Greek KAI.The Greeks also had one for NO KAI, or “no ands” called Asyndeton. These were not just haphazard usages but were a major part of Greek grammar and writing. SCHEMA or figures of speech were used to attract the attention of the hearer (or reader which err the case may be.) Obviously it’s done it’s job (ha ha)Bullinger goes on to state: “The laws of Grammar decide for us how the conjunction “and” shoudl be used. If we are enumerating a number of things, we (by usage) place the conjunction immediately before the last. (eggs, bacon, toast AND jelly [my example]) This the the COLD LAW, which leaves what we say without any special emphasis. But this law may be legitimately broken in tow different ways for the sake of emphasis. In order to attract the attention of the hearer or reader, wemay either use NO ANDS, or we may use MANY ANDS. May may use these figures, however, without sufficient reason, and unwisely: but the Holy Spirit [and obviously the ancient Greeks who developed this grammatical science (my comment)] ever uses words in all perfection, and it behoves us carefully to note whatever He thus calls our attention to. When He uses “many-ands” ther eis never any climax at the end. Instead of hurrying us on, breathlessly, to reach the important conclusion; we are asked to sstop at each point, to weigh each matter that is presented to us, and to consider each particular that is thus added and emphasized.”In thinking about the use of the word “and” I know that when ever I use it out of the normal sense it’s also because I want to emphisize something, like: “Get out of the house AND mow the lawn, AND don’t forget to empty the garbage, AND feed your dog!”This is really a great book to have it’s called “Figures of Speech Used in the Bible” by E.W. Bullinger. But I would like to have a secular one on just the Greek language in general. I think I’ll see if I can find one.Hope this was of interest.Linda Harris

 

[] Revelation 16:19 – the great city[] Interlinear Greek-English NT

[] Revelation 16:19 – Greek Figures of Speech… L. Harris ljoharris at ckt.net
Thu Dec 29 14:47:03 EST 2005

 

[] 2 Thessalonians 3:17 [] FW: 2 Thessalonians 3:17 After I wrote the previous message I did a search on Greek Figures of Speech and found a secular (just plain ol Koine) sight that teaches this aspect of Greek Grammar.http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htmGo to the right hand of the page and it lists the figures used and click on polysyndeton.Seems like when I first got on the net 10 years ago I searched for all this stuff and found little. Haven’t done a search for sevearl years in this area and now there are lots of info on it.Linda Harris—– Original Message —– From: “L. Harris” <ljoharris at ckt.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 1:39 PMSubject: Re: [] Revelation 16:19 – the great city> Regarding the many usages of the word KAI, there is a name for that called > “POLUSUNDETON”. The Greeks developed a science called “SCHEMA”, which the > Latins carried on with called “Figura” and which come to us as “figures of > speech”. E.W. Bullinger in his book Figures of Speech used in the Bible > states:> > “All language is governed by law; but, in order to increase the power of a > word, or the force of an expression, these laws are designedly departed > from, and words and sentences are thrown into and used in new forms, or > figures. The ancient Greeks reduced these new and peculiar forms to > science, and gave names to more than two hundred of them”….the knowledge > of this ancient science is is so completely forgotten, that its very name > to-day is used in a differnet sense and whith almot an opposite meaning.”> > One such usage of a Greek Figure or SCHEMA” is POLUSUNDETON and means MANY > ANDS (KAI) and is described by Bullinger as:> > The repetition of the word “and” at the beginning of successive clauses. > Polysyndeton. Greek, POLUSUNDETON, from POLUS, many and SUNDETON, bound > together; hence, in grammar, it means a conjunction. The word, therefore, > means ‘much bound together’ or ‘many conjunctions’. It is also called > POLYSYNTHETON, from TITHEEMI,to put or place. Hence ‘many puttings: i.e., > of the same word – at the beginning f successive sentences: but his is > always one special word “AND”, Greek KAI.> > The Greeks also had one for NO KAI, or “no ands” called Asyndeton. These > were not just haphazard usages but were a major part of Greek grammar and > writing. SCHEMA or figures of speech were used to attract the attention of > the hearer (or reader which err the case may be.) Obviously it’s done it’s > job (ha ha)> > Bullinger goes on to state: “The laws of Grammar decide for us how the > conjunction “and” shoudl be used. If we are enumerating a number of > things, we (by usage) place the conjunction immediately before the last. > (eggs, bacon, toast AND jelly [my example]) This the the COLD LAW, which > leaves what we say without any special emphasis. But this law may be > legitimately broken in tow different ways for the sake of emphasis. In > order to attract the attention of the hearer or reader, wemay either use > NO ANDS, or we may use MANY ANDS. May may use these figures, however, > without sufficient reason, and unwisely: but the Holy Spirit [and > obviously the ancient Greeks who developed this grammatical science (my > comment)] ever uses words in all perfection, and it behoves us carefully > to note whatever He thus calls our attention to. When He uses “many-ands” > ther eis never any climax at the end. Instead of hurrying us on, > breathlessly, to reach the important conclusion; we are asked to sstop at > each point, to weigh each matter that is presented to us, and to consider > each particular that is thus added and emphasized.”> > In thinking about the use of the word “and” I know that when ever I use it > out of the normal sense it’s also because I want to emphisize something, > like: “Get out of the house AND mow the lawn, AND don’t forget to empty > the garbage, AND feed your dog!”> > This is really a great book to have it’s called “Figures of Speech Used in > the Bible” by E.W. Bullinger. But I would like to have a secular one on > just the Greek language in general. I think I’ll see if I can find one.> > Hope this was of interest.> Linda Harris>

 

[] 2 Thessalonians 3:17[] FW: 2 Thessalonians 3:17