Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.
When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.
When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
I'm sorry I have a massive pet-peeve about this, but the final book of the New Testament is not called "Book of Revelations" with the plural. The revelation of the title is singular, as is the conventional Greek name for the book: Ἂποκάλυψις, taken from the very first word of the text.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
I confess to having had a peeve like that of my own, but at some point over the years, i came to the conclusion that there are those who have always and will continue to use that plural title for the book; we know what they mean and I think I can live with it. It used to drive me up the wall to see in print, "For John and I" -- the nominative where I look for an accusative --, but I've decided that, at my age, I can grin and bear it; it appears to be the wave of the future, and besides, I'm one who talks a lot about language in flux. At any rate, whatever its title, it seems to me that there's a lot more than one vision set forth in the last book of the canon -- and that fact probably has something to do with the usage of a plural title.Stephen Carlson wrote:I'm sorry I have a massive pet-peeve about this, but the final book of the New Testament is not called "Book of Revelations" with the plural. The revelation of the title is singular, as is the conventional Greek name for the book: Ἂποκάλυψις, taken from the very first word of the text.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
ἀποκάλυψις ≠ "The Revelation" as it is usually understood
Commenting on a "pet-peeve" is probably going to end up as effective as tickling the shell of a crab, but anyway...Stephen Carlson wrote:I'm sorry I have a massive pet-peeve about this, but the final book of the New Testament is not called "Book of Revelations" with the plural. The revelation of the title is singular, as is the conventional Greek name for the book: Ἂποκάλυψις, taken from the very first word of the text.
Do you take ἀποκάλυψις as an abstract noun (like ὅρασις "vision") or concrete noun (ὅραμα "a vision")?
I think that most people who read the word "The Revelation" in English understand that it is refering to just a big long session of John seeing the future. It is a product of the ambiguity of the word "the" in English, not a problem in Greek.
I think that the word refers to the the abstract noun of "revelation", not "a revelation". Within that revelation ("process of revealing"), there could be a lot of individual revelations that were written down in turn. What I have written is not true to the word in the dictionary, but seems to carry the sense of what is meant by it.
Different ways of structuring meaning are possible. The two phrases, "I would like to pass please." and "Could you please move out of my way." In that case we use different words to represent different points of view about an action. For something like, "He took two rashers of bacon out of the fridge. He put them in a fry-pan on the stove and turned on the gas. A few minutes later, he put in an egg." is the same as "He cooked breakfast". In this case we use parts to represent the meaning of the whole. That is what is happening when someone might say "The Book of Revelations". Just as the steps that one might take to make breakfast is not exactly the same as "Make breakfast"
I conceed that using "Revelations" as an equivalent of the plural ἀποκαλύμματα is only an approximate equivalent of ἀποκάλυψις, but I think that it avoids a common misunderstanding of the word ἀποκάλυψις as translated by "The Revelation" in English.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm
Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
I related this pet peeve discussion to my new bride (married a year and half now) and she says as she went to different churches she was corrected away from the singular (Revelation) so many times that she just now calls it "The End of the Bible".
According to my training there are 16 visions making up 1 revelation.
Carl and Stephen C. now that you've jumped in I look forward to your comments on the topic. Pretty please!
According to my training there are 16 visions making up 1 revelation.
Carl and Stephen C. now that you've jumped in I look forward to your comments on the topic. Pretty please!
Scott Lawson
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
In questions of usage, it's always good to know one's audience and be aware what effect certain usages can have in certain audiences. In the audience I'm most familiar with (academic New Testament studies), "Revelations" is basically a shibboleth. Sort of like using "data" as a collective singular among physical scientists, who insist that it is a plural. I suppose that, as in all matters of usage, it's a group dynamic thing that may not be the most rational or logical, but it is what it is. I think that anyone sensitive to how one is going to be perceived should at least be aware of those ramifications.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: February 16th, 2014, 4:39 pm
Re: Object of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
Thanks to all for your thoughtful replies.Stephen Hughes wrote:That is an interesting question. Basically what you are asking is whether knowing Greek can help you understand more clearly what the "his" and "him" refer to in the English.Revelations 22:33 (part) wrote:καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ,
kaì hoi doûloi autoû latreúsousin autō
Greek has a way of avoiding this ambiguity, but that is not used here. The ambiguity can be avoided by using a different demonstrative pronoun - ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) [Strong's Greek: 1565], but here the Greek doesn't use that demonstrative, so we have to live with the ambiguity in our interpretations and renderings of the Greek text that we have.
In this case, knowing Greek does not solve a problem, it confirms that an apparent problem in English is a real problem in Greek too. Further to that, knowing Greek let's us formulate a good reason why it is ambiguous.
So am I then to understand that according to the Greek of the verse at Rev, 22:3, the text itself is ambiguous, and thus whomever the HIM is that receives LATREUO is subject to a theological position and not a grammatical one?
Stephen_Banes
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
The Book of RevelationS as a shibboleth
The Book of Revelations (forced search) does lead to a specific (less scholarly) type of website, I can see.Stephen Carlson wrote:In questions of usage, it's always good to know one's audience and be aware what effect certain usages can have in certain audiences. In the audience I'm most familiar with (academic New Testament studies), "Revelations" is basically a shibboleth. Sort of like using "data" as a collective singular among physical scientists, who insist that it is a plural. I suppose that, as in all matters of usage, it's a group dynamic thing that may not be the most rational or logical, but it is what it is. I think that anyone sensitive to how one is going to be perceived should at least be aware of those ramifications.
While I was using it for different reasons, I can see how that using the plural form could make it look like I am an ignorant hick (which is of course not altogether untrue in itself ).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Object of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
I think that the grammar is technically ambiguous, in that it is not immediately clear which entity referenced in the context is the more salient to be picked up by the pronoun. But it's not merely theological either, because we may be able to get a sense of how the author thinks to address the ambiguity. For example, in Rev 7:15-17 we have people worshipping before the throne of God and the Lamb sitting on the throne. If these passages are consistent, this suggests to me that Rev 22:3 likewise should be thought of as serving the Lamb. But we have to admit that our conclusions are tentative; maybe the author isn't being consistent in the way that we would like. We don't really know; we can only do the best we can.Stephen_Banes wrote:So am I then to understand that according to the Greek of the verse at Rev, 22:3, the text itself is ambiguous, and thus whomever the HIM is that receives LATREUO is subject to a theological position and not a grammatical one?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm
Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
Revelation 7:15 says:
"διὰ τοῦτὸ εἰσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ..."
Stephen C. does Barry's statement to the effect that the nearest noun in the sentence should be considered the antecedent unless there are overriding circumstances work at Rev. 7:15 so that θεοῦ should be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ?
Do you agree with my observation that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου functions as a grammatical unit and that as such neither of the substantives can be broken out of the unit so as to be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ? Or how would you describe τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου at Rev. 22:3?
"διὰ τοῦτὸ εἰσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ..."
Stephen C. does Barry's statement to the effect that the nearest noun in the sentence should be considered the antecedent unless there are overriding circumstances work at Rev. 7:15 so that θεοῦ should be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ?
Do you agree with my observation that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου functions as a grammatical unit and that as such neither of the substantives can be broken out of the unit so as to be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ? Or how would you describe τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου at Rev. 22:3?
Scott Lawson
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3
My rule is that the most salient referent matching the pronoun is the antecedent. Usually the nearest matching referent is, but not always. World knowledge, common sense, context, knowledge of the author's thinking, etc. may trump that. We find out who is sitting in the throne in v.17.Scott Lawson wrote:Revelation 7:15 says: "διὰ τοῦτὸ εἰσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ..."
Stephen C. does Barry's statement to the effect that the nearest noun in the sentence should be considered the antecedent unless there are overriding circumstances work at Rev. 7:15 so that θεοῦ should be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ?
It is a certainly grammatical unit, but I am not aware of any (valid) rule that forbids either member from being an antecedent for a later pronoun.Scott Lawson wrote:Do you agree with my observation that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου functions as a grammatical unit and that as such neither of the substantives can be broken out of the unit so as to be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ?Or how would you describe τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου at Rev. 22:3?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia