[] Rev 19.11, syntax at ntresources.com at ntresources.com
Tue Sep 30 15:34:50 EDT 2003
[] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29 [] Rev 19.11, syntax Any recommendations as to the best way to describe the syntax of Rev 19.11c?I’m thinking of the adjectival substantival participle, followed by a pres.pass. ptcp. of KALEW (adjectival? adverbial?), and *two nominatives.*hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON KALOUMENOS PISTOS KAI ALHQINOSKALEW is one of few verbs (other than EIMI, GINOMAI) that can take apredicate nominative, but only in passive (e.g., Jas 2:23). But I’m notaccustomed to thinking of a ptcp. taking a predicate nom. (or is my brainjust full of cobwebs again?).The *function* here is clear: the one sitting on the horse is described asfaithful and true. (KALOUMENOS could almost be translated with an “is.”)But how is this best described in syntactical terms for, say, a 2d yearstudent? (BDAG has a note the describes the function, but gives noterminology to describe it: s.v. KALEW, 1.c, p. 503, top of col. 1.)= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Rodney J. Decker, Th.D., Assoc. Professor/NTBaptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, PA, USAURL: www.NTResources.com PURL: purl.oclc.org/NT_Resources/Email: <rdecker> at <NTResources.com>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29[] Rev 19.11, syntax
[] Rev 19.11, syntax at ntresources.com at ntresources.com
Tue Sep 30 15:34:50 EDT 2003
[] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29 [] Rev 19.11, syntax Any recommendations as to the best way to describe the syntax of Rev 19.11c?I’m thinking of the adjectival substantival participle, followed by a pres.pass. ptcp. of KALEW (adjectival? adverbial?), and *two nominatives.*hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON KALOUMENOS PISTOS KAI ALHQINOSKALEW is one of few verbs (other than EIMI, GINOMAI) that can take apredicate nominative, but only in passive (e.g., Jas 2:23). But I’m notaccustomed to thinking of a ptcp. taking a predicate nom. (or is my brainjust full of cobwebs again?).The *function* here is clear: the one sitting on the horse is described asfaithful and true. (KALOUMENOS could almost be translated with an “is.”)But how is this best described in syntactical terms for, say, a 2d yearstudent? (BDAG has a note the describes the function, but gives noterminology to describe it: s.v. KALEW, 1.c, p. 503, top of col. 1.)= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Rodney J. Decker, Th.D., Assoc. Professor/NTBaptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, PA, USAURL: www.NTResources.com PURL: purl.oclc.org/NT_Resources/Email: <rdecker> at <NTResources.com>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29[] Rev 19.11, syntax
[] Rev 19.11, syntax Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 30 16:09:51 EDT 2003
[] Rev 19.11, syntax At 3:34 PM -0400 9/30/03, at ntresources.com wrote:>Any recommendations as to the best way to describe the syntax of Rev 19.11c?> >I’m thinking of the adjectival substantival participle, followed by a pres.>pass. ptcp. of KALEW (adjectival? adverbial?), and *two nominatives.*> >hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON KALOUMENOS PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS> >KALEW is one of few verbs (other than EIMI, GINOMAI) that can take a>predicate nominative, but only in passive (e.g., Jas 2:23). But I’m not>accustomed to thinking of a ptcp. taking a predicate nom. (or is my brain>just full of cobwebs again?).> >The *function* here is clear: the one sitting on the horse is described as>faithful and true. (KALOUMENOS could almost be translated with an “is.”)>But how is this best described in syntactical terms for, say, a 2d year>student? (BDAG has a note the describes the function, but gives no>terminology to describe it: s.v. KALEW, 1.c, p. 503, top of col. 1.)Rod,I would understand PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS as equivalent to a proper name,”Faithful and True.”–“and riding it was one called “Faithful and True.” Itlooks to me very much like a common Lucan usage in, e.g.,Lk 7:11 EPOREUQH EIS POLIN KALOUMENHN NAINLk 9:10 hUECWRHSEN KAT’ IDIAN EIS POLIN KALOUMENHN BHQSAIDLk 10:39 KAI THiDE HN ADELFH KALOUMENH MARIAMLk 19:2 KAI IDOU ANHR ONOMATI KALOUMENOS ZAKCAIOS.The last example I’ve cited is rather strangely “double-determined” withboth ONOMATI and KALOUMENOS, but I suppose we could English it as “Andlook, a man called by name Zacchaeus!”But in my opinion PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS in Rev 19:11c are to be understood asproper name-parts, not as descriptive adjectives.– 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 19.11, syntax
[] Rev 19.11, syntax Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 30 16:09:51 EDT 2003
[] Rev 19.11, syntax At 3:34 PM -0400 9/30/03, at ntresources.com wrote:>Any recommendations as to the best way to describe the syntax of Rev 19.11c?> >I’m thinking of the adjectival substantival participle, followed by a pres.>pass. ptcp. of KALEW (adjectival? adverbial?), and *two nominatives.*> >hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON KALOUMENOS PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS> >KALEW is one of few verbs (other than EIMI, GINOMAI) that can take a>predicate nominative, but only in passive (e.g., Jas 2:23). But I’m not>accustomed to thinking of a ptcp. taking a predicate nom. (or is my brain>just full of cobwebs again?).> >The *function* here is clear: the one sitting on the horse is described as>faithful and true. (KALOUMENOS could almost be translated with an “is.”)>But how is this best described in syntactical terms for, say, a 2d year>student? (BDAG has a note the describes the function, but gives no>terminology to describe it: s.v. KALEW, 1.c, p. 503, top of col. 1.)Rod,I would understand PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS as equivalent to a proper name,”Faithful and True.”–“and riding it was one called “Faithful and True.” Itlooks to me very much like a common Lucan usage in, e.g.,Lk 7:11 EPOREUQH EIS POLIN KALOUMENHN NAINLk 9:10 hUECWRHSEN KAT’ IDIAN EIS POLIN KALOUMENHN BHQSAIDLk 10:39 KAI THiDE HN ADELFH KALOUMENH MARIAMLk 19:2 KAI IDOU ANHR ONOMATI KALOUMENOS ZAKCAIOS.The last example I’ve cited is rather strangely “double-determined” withboth ONOMATI and KALOUMENOS, but I suppose we could English it as “Andlook, a man called by name Zacchaeus!”But in my opinion PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS in Rev 19:11c are to be understood asproper name-parts, not as descriptive adjectives.– 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 19.11, syntax
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? Webb webb at selftest.net
Fri Nov 24 16:57:57 EST 2006
[] Acts 4:33- CARIS [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO OUDEISOIDEN EI MH AUTOS Given that neuter plural nouns are often treated grammatically as singular,I immediately took the “name written” as inscribed on each of the royalcrowns, thus: .and on his head are many royal crowns. They have a name (or names,implicitly, the singular functioning as distributive) written on them, whichnobody knows but him.” Looking at 35 English translations or so, I couldn’t find a single one thattook it that way. But then.I read Lattimore: “On his head are many diadems, inscribed with the name which no one knowsexcept himself.” I love it when Lattimore and I agree all by ourselves 🙂 Can anyone tell me why Lattimore and I can’t be correct? Webb Mealy
[] Acts 4:33- CARIS[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Nov 24 17:27:52 EST 2006
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? On Nov 24, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Webb wrote:> KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO > OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS> > > > Given that neuter plural nouns are often treated grammatically as > singular,> I immediately took the “name written” as inscribed on each of the > royal> crowns, thus:> > > > .and on his head are many royal crowns. They have a name (or names,> implicitly, the singular functioning as distributive) written on > them, which> nobody knows but him.”The reason this won’t do is that the participle ECWN is masc. sg. nom. — it cannot possibly modify DIADHMA sg. or DIADHMATA pl. It can only refer to the rider of the horse, although it is awkwardly positioned — another of the grammatical irregularities of this book that we commonly refer to as “solecisms.”> > Looking at 35 English translations or so, I couldn’t find a single > one that> took it that way. But then.I read Lattimore:> > > > “On his head are many diadems, inscribed with the name which no one > knows> except himself.”> > > > I love it when Lattimore and I agree all by ourselves 🙂> > > > Can anyone tell me why Lattimore and I can’t be correct?> > > > Webb Mealy> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? Webb webb at selftest.net
Fri Nov 24 18:39:39 EST 2006
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? [] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21) Does it move you towards Lattimore and me for me to observe that John likesusing EXWN with a neuter singular subject?KAI TO TRITON ZWiON ECWN TO PROSWPON hWS ANQRWPOU (Rev. 4:7)KAI TA TESSARA ZWiA hEN KAQ hEN AUTWN ECWN ANA PTERUGAS hEX (Rev. 4:8)KAI EIDON EN MESWi TOU QRONOU KAI TWN TESSARWN ZWiWN KAI EN MESWi TWNPRESBUTERWN ARNION hESTHKOS hWS ESFAGMENON ECWN KERATA hEPTA (Rev. 5:6)KAI EIDON KAI IDOU NEFELH LEUKH KAI EPI THN NEFELHN KAQHMENON hOMOION hUIONANQRWPOU ECWN EPI THS KEFALHS AUTOU STEFANON CRUSOUN (Rev. 14:14) Or wouldthe attraction to the gender of ANQRWPOS be predicted in non-solecisticGreek?KAI EIDON GUNAIKA KAQHMENHN EPI QHRION KOKKINON GEMONTA ONOMATA BLASFHMIASECWN KEFALAS hEPTA KAI KERATA DEKA (Rev. 17:3)KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO OUDEISOIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12) KAI TO TEICOS THS POLEWS ECWN QEMELIOUS DWDEKA (Rev. 21:14)Note that John is also capable of doing it right (either that, or somebodyhas fixed it extremely early in transmission–it sounds about the same indictation, anyway, right?):KAI EIDON EK THS QALASSHS QHRION ANABAINON ECON KERATA DEKA KAI KEFALAShEPTA (Rev. 13:1)Now, on a totally different tack, can one take ECWN with what precedes? Thus(observe the comma):KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN, ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO OUDEISOIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12)Once again I guess the assumption would have to be that GEGRAMMENON issingular because he’s thinking distributively. I’ll be glad if any of this works, because those crowns want names on them.:)Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:28 PMTo: WebbCc: ‘B Greek’Subject: Re: [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??On Nov 24, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Webb wrote:> KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO > OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS> > > > Given that neuter plural nouns are often treated grammatically as > singular,> I immediately took the “name written” as inscribed on each of the > royal> crowns, thus:> > > > .and on his head are many royal crowns. They have a name (or names,> implicitly, the singular functioning as distributive) written on > them, which> nobody knows but him.”The reason this won’t do is that the participle ECWN is masc. sg. nom. — it cannot possibly modify DIADHMA sg. or DIADHMATA pl. It can only refer to the rider of the horse, although it is awkwardly positioned — another of the grammatical irregularities of this book that we commonly refer to as “solecisms.”> > Looking at 35 English translations or so, I couldn’t find a single > one that> took it that way. But then.I read Lattimore:> > > > “On his head are many diadems, inscribed with the name which no one > knows> except himself.”> > > > I love it when Lattimore and I agree all by ourselves 🙂> > > > Can anyone tell me why Lattimore and I can’t be correct?> > > > Webb Mealy> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21)
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 24 19:11:35 EST 2006
[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21) [] Standing in the sun?? (Rev. 19:17) 11 KAI EIDON TON OURANON HNEWiGMENON, KAI IDOU hIPPOS LEUKOS KAI hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON [KALOUMENONS] PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS, KAI EN DIKAIOSUNHi KRINEI KAI POLEMEI12 hOI DE OFQALMOI AUTOU [hWS] FLOC PUROS, KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA, EXWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO OUDEIS OIDEN EI MH AUTOS.I think you’ll find if you look more carefully that EXWN relates to hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON and is thus masc. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Webb <webb at selftest.net>To: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:39:39 PMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??Does it move you towards Lattimore and me for me to observe that John likesusing EXWN with a neuter singular subject?KAI TO TRITON ZWiON ECWN TO PROSWPON hWS ANQRWPOU (Rev. 4:7)KAI TA TESSARA ZWiA hEN KAQ hEN AUTWN ECWN ANA PTERUGAS hEX (Rev. 4:8)KAI EIDON EN MESWi TOU QRONOU KAI TWN TESSARWN ZWiWN KAI EN MESWi TWNPRESBUTERWN ARNION hESTHKOS hWS ESFAGMENON ECWN KERATA hEPTA (Rev. 5:6)KAI EIDON KAI IDOU NEFELH LEUKH KAI EPI THN NEFELHN KAQHMENON hOMOION hUIONANQRWPOU ECWN EPI THS KEFALHS AUTOU STEFANON CRUSOUN (Rev. 14:14) Or wouldthe attraction to the gender of ANQRWPOS be predicted in non-solecisticGreek?KAI EIDON GUNAIKA KAQHMENHN EPI QHRION KOKKINON GEMONTA ONOMATA BLASFHMIASECWN KEFALAS hEPTA KAI KERATA DEKA (Rev. 17:3)KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO OUDEISOIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12) KAI TO TEICOS THS POLEWS ECWN QEMELIOUS DWDEKA (Rev. 21:14)Note that John is also capable of doing it right (either that, or somebodyhas fixed it extremely early in transmission–it sounds about the same indictation, anyway, right?):KAI EIDON EK THS QALASSHS QHRION ANABAINON ECON KERATA DEKA KAI KEFALAShEPTA (Rev. 13:1)Now, on a totally different tack, can one take ECWN with what precedes? Thus(observe the comma):KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN, ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO OUDEISOIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12)Once again I guess the assumption would have to be that GEGRAMMENON issingular because he’s thinking distributively. I’ll be glad if any of this works, because those crowns want names on them.:)Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:28 PMTo: WebbCc: ‘B Greek’Subject: Re: [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??On Nov 24, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Webb wrote:> KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO > OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS> > > > Given that neuter plural nouns are often treated grammatically as > singular,> I immediately took the “name written” as inscribed on each of the > royal> crowns, thus:> > > > .and on his head are many royal crowns. They have a name (or names,> implicitly, the singular functioning as distributive) written on > them, which> nobody knows but him.”The reason this won’t do is that the participle ECWN is masc. sg. nom. — it cannot possibly modify DIADHMA sg. or DIADHMATA pl. It can only refer to the rider of the horse, although it is awkwardly positioned — another of the grammatical irregularities of this book that we commonly refer to as “solecisms.”> > Looking at 35 English translations or so, I couldn’t find a single > one that> took it that way. But then.I read Lattimore:> > > > “On his head are many diadems, inscribed with the name which no one > knows> except himself.”> > > > I love it when Lattimore and I agree all by ourselves 🙂> > > > Can anyone tell me why Lattimore and I can’t be correct?> > > > Webb Mealy> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21)[] Standing in the sun?? (Rev. 19:17)
[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Nov 26 08:22:52 EST 2006
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what?? There’s been a little water under the bridge, but I have been pondering this matter a bit.On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Webb wrote:> Does it move you towards Lattimore and me for me to observe that > John likes> using EXWN with a neuter singular subject?I’m glad you’ve called attention to this (although I wish you’d be more consistent with regard to transliterating Chi: you’re using BOTH “X” AND “C” instead of one or the other. I prefer to keep “X” for Xi),You haven’t made me change my opinion regarding ECWN in Rev 19:12 from what I wrote earlier (my original response below), but you’ve called attention to the unquestionable fact that use of ECWN as an “indeclinable” participial form by the author of Revelation is more common than one might imagine. This is discussed in BDF §136 ‘(5) More Serious Incongruencies (Solecisms).’ I cite subsection (5) from this account (page 75): “Incongruence in number: … The participle accounts for the major part of these incongruencies; in other respects, too, its use in the later period becomes more and more uncertain, with the masculine, especially in the nominative singular, greatly preferred; in MGr the participle has only ONE indeclinable form in -NTAS (nom.).”So — what is involved in these instances of ECWN is not simply a grammatical solecism (from the perspective of contemporary school Greek grammar) but rather an early phase of the development toward a single and indeclinable present participial form of the verb. The Greek of this author then may not be so much anomalous as it is closer to the vernacular in its usage than any other NT document. More evidence, evidently(!), of the fact that NT Greek is a language IN FLUX.I haven’t made a study of the grammatical usage of the author of Revelation — nor have I consulted the commentaries which must have sections on this, but I guess what we’d have to say is that the indeclinable m. sg. nom. form of the ptc. must seem “natural” to this author so that he frequently employs it without thinking, while at other times he’s sufficiently aware that it doesn’t conform to the school grammar that he corrects it — or, as you say, it may be the copyists that have “corrected” these forms to what school grammar would use.Another idea that occurs to me — but it’s no more than a hazardous notion — is that ECWN is functioning much like a preposition construed with accusative-case forms meaning “with.” After all, that particular sense of the present participle of ECW, “wear,” or “have on,” can become idiomatic: e.g., “the man with the yellow hat.”> KAI TO TRITON ZWiON ECWN TO PROSWPON hWS ANQRWPOU (Rev. 4:7)> > KAI TA TESSARA ZWiA hEN KAQ hEN AUTWN ECWN ANA PTERUGAS hEX (Rev. 4:8)> > KAI EIDON EN MESWi TOU QRONOU KAI TWN TESSARWN ZWiWN KAI EN MESWi TWN> PRESBUTERWN ARNION hESTHKOS hWS ESFAGMENON ECWN KERATA hEPTA (Rev. > 5:6)> > KAI EIDON KAI IDOU NEFELH LEUKH KAI EPI THN NEFELHN KAQHMENON > hOMOION hUION> ANQRWPOU ECWN EPI THS KEFALHS AUTOU STEFANON CRUSOUN (Rev. 14:14) > Or would> the attraction to the gender of ANQRWPOS be predicted in non- > solecistic> Greek?> > KAI EIDON GUNAIKA KAQHMENHN EPI QHRION KOKKINON GEMONTA ONOMATA > BLASFHMIAS> ECWN KEFALAS hEPTA KAI KERATA DEKA (Rev. 17:3)> > KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO > OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12)> > KAI TO TEICOS THS POLEWS ECWN QEMELIOUS DWDEKA (Rev. 21:14)> > Note that John is also capable of doing it right (either that, or > somebody> has fixed it extremely early in transmission–it sounds about the > same in> dictation, anyway, right?):> > KAI EIDON EK THS QALASSHS QHRION ANABAINON ECON KERATA DEKA KAI > KEFALAS> hEPTA (Rev. 13:1)> > Now, on a totally different tack, can one take ECWN with what > precedes? Thus> (observe the comma):> > KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN, ONOMA GEGRAMMENON > hO OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12)The comma, of course, is added by the modern editor, not by the copyist. But it tells us that the modern editor has not understood ECWN as an indeclinable participle but rather as referring back to the rider of the horse.> > Once again I guess the assumption would have to be that GEGRAMMENON is> singular because he’s thinking distributively.> > I’ll be glad if any of this works, because those crowns want names > on them.> 🙂I think what you mean is that YOU want names on them! For my part I’m less inclined to want to attempt to sort out the kaleidoscopic imagery of this document.> > Webb Mealy> > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:28 PM> To: Webb> Cc: ‘B Greek’> Subject: Re: [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??> > > On Nov 24, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Webb wrote:> >> KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO>> OUDEIS>> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS>> >> >> >> Given that neuter plural nouns are often treated grammatically as>> singular,>> I immediately took the “name written” as inscribed on each of the>> royal>> crowns, thus:>> >> >> >> .and on his head are many royal crowns. They have a name (or names,>> implicitly, the singular functioning as distributive) written on>> them, which>> nobody knows but him.”> > The reason this won’t do is that the participle ECWN is masc. sg.> nom. — it cannot possibly modify DIADHMA sg. or DIADHMATA pl. It can> only refer to the rider of the horse, although it is awkwardly> positioned — another of the grammatical irregularities of this book> that we commonly refer to as “solecisms.”> >> >> Looking at 35 English translations or so, I couldn’t find a single>> one that>> took it that way. But then.I read Lattimore:>> >> >> >> “On his head are many diadems, inscribed with the name which no one>> knows>> except himself.”>> >> >> >> I love it when Lattimore and I agree all by ourselves 🙂>> >> >> >> Can anyone tell me why Lattimore and I can’t be correct?>> >> >> >> Webb MealyCarl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??[] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??
[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21) George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 27 15:03:43 EST 2006
[] E-Listers photo from SBL 2006 [] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21) I would still maintain that the antecedent of EXWN is the m sg nom hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON. This phrase has a number (7) descriptions attached11. KAI EIDON TON OURANON HNEWiGMENON, KAI IDOU hIPPOS LEUKOS KAI hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON (1) [KALOUMENOS] PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS (2) KAI EN DIKAOSUNHi KRINEI KAI POLEMEI 12. (3) hOI DE OFQALMOI AUTOU [hWS] FLOC PUROS (4) KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA (5) EXWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO OUDEIS OIDEN EI MH AUTOS 13. (6) KAI PERIBEBLHMENOS hIMATION BEBAMMENON hAIMATI (7) KAI KEKLHTAI TO ONOMA AUTOU hO LOGOS TOU QEOU georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>To: Webb <webb at selftest.net>Cc: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:22:52 AMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21)There’s been a little water under the bridge, but I have been pondering this matter a bit.On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Webb wrote:> Does it move you towards Lattimore and me for me to observe that > John likes> using EXWN with a neuter singular subject?I’m glad you’ve called attention to this (although I wish you’d be more consistent with regard to transliterating Chi: you’re using BOTH “X” AND “C” instead of one or the other. I prefer to keep “X” for Xi),You haven’t made me change my opinion regarding ECWN in Rev 19:12 from what I wrote earlier (my original response below), but you’ve called attention to the unquestionable fact that use of ECWN as an “indeclinable” participial form by the author of Revelation is more common than one might imagine. This is discussed in BDF §136 ‘(5) More Serious Incongruencies (Solecisms).’ I cite subsection (5) from this account (page 75): “Incongruence in number: … The participle accounts for the major part of these incongruencies; in other respects, too, its use in the later period becomes more and more uncertain, with the masculine, especially in the nominative singular, greatly preferred; in MGr the participle has only ONE indeclinable form in -NTAS (nom.).”So — what is involved in these instances of ECWN is not simply a grammatical solecism (from the perspective of contemporary school Greek grammar) but rather an early phase of the development toward a single and indeclinable present participial form of the verb. The Greek of this author then may not be so much anomalous as it is closer to the vernacular in its usage than any other NT document. More evidence, evidently(!), of the fact that NT Greek is a language IN FLUX.I haven’t made a study of the grammatical usage of the author of Revelation — nor have I consulted the commentaries which must have sections on this, but I guess what we’d have to say is that the indeclinable m. sg. nom. form of the ptc. must seem “natural” to this author so that he frequently employs it without thinking, while at other times he’s sufficiently aware that it doesn’t conform to the school grammar that he corrects it — or, as you say, it may be the copyists that have “corrected” these forms to what school grammar would use.Another idea that occurs to me — but it’s no more than a hazardous notion — is that ECWN is functioning much like a preposition construed with accusative-case forms meaning “with.” After all, that particular sense of the present participle of ECW, “wear,” or “have on,” can become idiomatic: e.g., “the man with the yellow hat.”> KAI TO TRITON ZWiON ECWN TO PROSWPON hWS ANQRWPOU (Rev. 4:7)> > KAI TA TESSARA ZWiA hEN KAQ hEN AUTWN ECWN ANA PTERUGAS hEX (Rev. 4:8)> > KAI EIDON EN MESWi TOU QRONOU KAI TWN TESSARWN ZWiWN KAI EN MESWi TWN> PRESBUTERWN ARNION hESTHKOS hWS ESFAGMENON ECWN KERATA hEPTA (Rev. > 5:6)> > KAI EIDON KAI IDOU NEFELH LEUKH KAI EPI THN NEFELHN KAQHMENON > hOMOION hUION> ANQRWPOU ECWN EPI THS KEFALHS AUTOU STEFANON CRUSOUN (Rev. 14:14) > Or would> the attraction to the gender of ANQRWPOS be predicted in non- > solecistic> Greek?> > KAI EIDON GUNAIKA KAQHMENHN EPI QHRION KOKKINON GEMONTA ONOMATA > BLASFHMIAS> ECWN KEFALAS hEPTA KAI KERATA DEKA (Rev. 17:3)> > KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO > OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12)> > KAI TO TEICOS THS POLEWS ECWN QEMELIOUS DWDEKA (Rev. 21:14)> > Note that John is also capable of doing it right (either that, or > somebody> has fixed it extremely early in transmission–it sounds about the > same in> dictation, anyway, right?):> > KAI EIDON EK THS QALASSHS QHRION ANABAINON ECON KERATA DEKA KAI > KEFALAS> hEPTA (Rev. 13:1)> > Now, on a totally different tack, can one take ECWN with what > precedes? Thus> (observe the comma):> > KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN, ONOMA GEGRAMMENON > hO OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12)The comma, of course, is added by the modern editor, not by the copyist. But it tells us that the modern editor has not understood ECWN as an indeclinable participle but rather as referring back to the rider of the horse.> > Once again I guess the assumption would have to be that GEGRAMMENON is> singular because he’s thinking distributively.> > I’ll be glad if any of this works, because those crowns want names > on them.> 🙂I think what you mean is that YOU want names on them! For my part I’m less inclined to want to attempt to sort out the kaleidoscopic imagery of this document.> > Webb Mealy> > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:28 PM> To: Webb> Cc: ‘B Greek’> Subject: Re: [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??> > > On Nov 24, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Webb wrote:> >> KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO>> OUDEIS>> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS>> >> >> >> Given that neuter plural nouns are often treated grammatically as>> singular,>> I immediately took the “name written” as inscribed on each of the>> royal>> crowns, thus:>> >> >> >> .and on his head are many royal crowns. They have a name (or names,>> implicitly, the singular functioning as distributive) written on>> them, which>> nobody knows but him.”> > The reason this won’t do is that the participle ECWN is masc. sg.> nom. — it cannot possibly modify DIADHMA sg. or DIADHMATA pl. It can> only refer to the rider of the horse, although it is awkwardly> positioned — another of the grammatical irregularities of this book> that we commonly refer to as “solecisms.”> >> >> Looking at 35 English translations or so, I couldn’t find a single>> one that>> took it that way. But then.I read Lattimore:>> >> >> >> “On his head are many diadems, inscribed with the name which no one>> knows>> except himself.”>> >> >> >> I love it when Lattimore and I agree all by ourselves 🙂>> >> >> >> Can anyone tell me why Lattimore and I can’t be correct?>> >> >> >> Webb MealyCarl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] E-Listers photo from SBL 2006[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21)
[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21) Webb webb at selftest.net
Mon Nov 27 15:19:48 EST 2006
[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21) [] Audio Greek NT Of course, if John is trying to say that the rider on the horse has manycrowns on his head, each inscribed with a name that only he knows, thatstatement as a whole remains “a description” of the rider. I donÂ’t thinkthereÂ’s anything about the poetic form that pushes the matter one way or theother. On this score, note that his robe has a name written on it too—v. 16.So not everything said is ascribed to his body as opposed, say, to hisaccoutrements. Webb _____ From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:04 PMTo: Carl W. Conrad; WebbCc: B GreekSubject: Re: [] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21) I would still maintain that the antecedent of EXWN is the m sg nom hOKAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON. This phrase has a number (7) descriptions attached 11. KAI EIDON TON OURANON HNEWiGMENON, KAI IDOU hIPPOS LEUKOS KAI hO KAQHMENOS EP’ AUTON (1) [KALOUMENOS] PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS (2) KAI EN DIKAOSUNHi KRINEI KAI POLEMEI 12. (3) hOI DE OFQALMOI AUTOU [hWS] FLOC PUROS (4) KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA (5) EXWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO OUDEIS OIDEN EI MH AUTOS 13. (6) KAI PERIBEBLHMENOS hIMATION BEBAMMENON hAIMATI (7) KAI KEKLHTAI TO ONOMA AUTOU hO LOGOS TOU QEOU georgegfsomsel_________ —– Original Message —-From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>To: Webb <webb at selftest.net>Cc: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:22:52 AMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21)There’s been a little water under the bridge, but I have been pondering this matter a bit.On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Webb wrote:> Does it move you towards Lattimore and me for me to observe that > John likes> using EXWN with a neuter singular subject?I’m glad you’ve called attention to this (although I wish you’d be more consistent with regard to transliterating Chi: you’re using BOTH “X” AND “C” instead of one or the other. I prefer to keep “X” for Xi),You haven’t made me change my opinion regarding ECWN in Rev 19:12 from what I wrote earlier (my original response below), but you’ve called attention to the unquestionable fact that use of ECWN as an “indeclinable” participial form by the author of Revelation is more common than one might imagine. This is discussed in BDF §136 ‘(5) More Serious Incongruencies (Solecisms).’ I cite subsection (5) from this account (page 75): “Incongruence in number: … The participle accounts for the major part of these incongruencies; in other respects, too, its use in the later period becomes more and more uncertain, with the masculine, especially in the nominative singular, greatly preferred; in MGr the participle has only ONE indeclinable form in -NTAS (nom.).”So — what is involved in these instances of ECWN is not simply a grammatical solecism (from the perspective of contemporary school Greek grammar) but rather an early phase of the development toward a single and indeclinable present participial form of the verb. The Greek of this author then may not be so much anomalous as it is closer to the vernacular in its usage than any other NT document. More evidence, evidently(!), of the fact that NT Greek is a language IN FLUX.I haven’t made a study of the grammatical usage of the author of Revelation — nor have I consulted the commentaries which must have sections on this, but I guess what we’d have to say is that the indeclinable m. sg. nom. form of the ptc. must seem “natural” to this author so that he frequently employs it without thinking, while at other times he’s sufficiently aware that it doesn’t conform to the school grammar that he corrects it — or, as you say, it may be the copyists that have “corrected” these forms to what school grammar would use.Another idea that occurs to me — but it’s no more than a hazardous notion — is that ECWN is functioning much like a preposition construed with accusative-case forms meaning “with.” After all, that particular sense of the present participle of ECW, “wear,” or “have on,” can become idiomatic: e.g., “the man with the yellow hat.”> KAI TO TRITON ZWiON ECWN TO PROSWPON hWS ANQRWPOU (Rev. 4:7)> > KAI TA TESSARA ZWiA hEN KAQ hEN AUTWN ECWN ANA PTERUGAS hEX (Rev. 4:8)> > KAI EIDON EN MESWi TOU QRONOU KAI TWN TESSARWN ZWiWN KAI EN MESWi TWN> PRESBUTERWN ARNION hESTHKOS hWS ESFAGMENON ECWN KERATA hEPTA (Rev. > 5:6)> > KAI EIDON KAI IDOU NEFELH LEUKH KAI EPI THN NEFELHN KAQHMENON > hOMOION hUION> ANQRWPOU ECWN EPI THS KEFALHS AUTOU STEFANON CRUSOUN (Rev. 14:14) > Or would> the attraction to the gender of ANQRWPOS be predicted in non- > solecistic> Greek?> > KAI EIDON GUNAIKA KAQHMENHN EPI QHRION KOKKINON GEMONTA ONOMATA > BLASFHMIAS> ECWN KEFALAS hEPTA KAI KERATA DEKA (Rev. 17:3)> > KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO > OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12)> > KAI TO TEICOS THS POLEWS ECWN QEMELIOUS DWDEKA (Rev. 21:14)> > Note that John is also capable of doing it right (either that, or > somebody> has fixed it extremely early in transmission–it sounds about the > same in> dictation, anyway, right?):> > KAI EIDON EK THS QALASSHS QHRION ANABAINON ECON KERATA DEKA KAI > KEFALAS> hEPTA (Rev. 13:1)> > Now, on a totally different tack, can one take ECWN with what > precedes? Thus> (observe the comma):> > KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN, ONOMA GEGRAMMENON > hO OUDEIS> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS (Rev. 19:12)The comma, of course, is added by the modern editor, not by the copyist. But it tells us that the modern editor has not understood ECWN as an indeclinable participle but rather as referring back to the rider of the horse.> > Once again I guess the assumption would have to be that GEGRAMMENON is> singular because he’s thinking distributively.> > I’ll be glad if any of this works, because those crowns want names > on them.> 🙂I think what you mean is that YOU want names on them! For my part I’m less inclined to want to attempt to sort out the kaleidoscopic imagery of this document.> > Webb Mealy> > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:28 PM> To: Webb> Cc: ‘B Greek’> Subject: Re: [] Rev. 19:21–names written on what??> > > On Nov 24, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Webb wrote:> >> KAI EPI THN KEFALHN AUTOU DIADHMATA POLLA ECWN ONOMA GEGRAMMENON hO>> OUDEIS>> OIDEN EI MH AUTOS>> >> >> >> Given that neuter plural nouns are often treated grammatically as>> singular,>> I immediately took the “name written” as inscribed on each of the>> royal>> crowns, thus:>> >> >> >> .and on his head are many royal crowns. They have a name (or names,>> implicitly, the singular functioning as distributive) written on>> them, which>> nobody knows but him.”> > The reason this won’t do is that the participle ECWN is masc. sg.> nom. — it cannot possibly modify DIADHMA sg. or DIADHMATA pl. It can> only refer to the rider of the horse, although it is awkwardly> positioned — another of the grammatical irregularities of this book> that we commonly refer to as “solecisms.”> >> >> Looking at 35 English translations or so, I couldn’t find a single>> one that>> took it that way. But then.I read Lattimore:>> >> >> >> “On his head are many diadems, inscribed with the name which no one>> knows>> except himself.”>> >> >> >> I love it when Lattimore and I agree all by ourselves 🙂>> >> >> >> Can anyone tell me why Lattimore and I can’t be correct?>> >> >> >> Webb MealyCarl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Rev. 19:12–names written on what? (was Rev 19:21)[] Audio Greek NT
tell us Gary Micheal Epping Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Jesus declared that the words that he spoke at his first coming will judge everyone on the Last Day. This is literally the Word of God Coming to Judge the world. It is literally a fire, a flaming sword coming from Heaven and God’s Holy Zion to judge the hearts and deeds of all men.
what are the names written on
the name is written on the rider of the white horse.
“On his head are many diadems, inscribed with the name which no one knowsexcept himself.” ???
Troy Day correct.
interesting take – the Greek says otherwise