QAUMASATE QAUMASIA Hab 1:5 /Rev. 17:6

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 11 14:48:35 EDT 2002




> In a message dated 7/10/02 3:50:53 PM, cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net writes:
> 
>> HAB. 1:5 IDETE hOI KATAFRONHTAI KAI EPIBLEYATE KAI QAUMASATE QAUMASIA KAI
>> AFANISQHTE DIOTI ERGON EGW ERGAZOMAI EN TAIS hHMERAIS hUMWN hO OU MH
>> PISTEUSHTE EAN TIS EKDIHGHTAI
>> 
>> REV. 17:6 KAI EIDON THN GUNAIKA MEQUOUSAN EK TOU hAIMATOS TWN hAGIWN KAI EK
>> TOU hAIMATOS TWN MARTURWN IHSOU. KAI EQAUMASA IDWN AUTHN QAUMA MEGA.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
> omission
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>> Found what looks like an expression similar to one used in Rev 17:6 in Hab
>> 1:5.  KAI QAUMASATE QAUMASIA renders a difficult Hebrew verb sequence (see
>> F.I. Andersen, Habakkuk AB, 2001 pages 141-142.) Rev. 17:6  KAI EQAUMASA IDWN
>> AUTHN QAUMA MEGA has semantic parallels in Dan 4:17,19 but the repetition of
>> QAUMA- isn't found in Daniel.
>> 
>> F.I. Andersen points out that the LXX (OG) of Hab 1:5  simplifies
>> (disambiguates) the Hebrew somewhat.
>> 
>> This is just an observation, not really a question.
>> 
>> Clay
>> 

on 7/10/02 3:12 PM, Clwinbery at aol.com wrote:
> I would agree that the statement in Revelation probably has the Hebrew idiom
> behind it. I think that the Seer was very familiar with the text of the Heb.
> Bible.
> 
> Question: is AFANISQHTE a true passive? "You were devastated." Would the
> Hebrew behind it support a passive idea.

Carlton,

The LXX (OG) does not follow the MT very closely here. There is nothing in
the MT that corresponds to KAI AFANISQHTE in Hab 1:5 LXX (OG). The Vulgate
does not have it either.

Hab. 1:5 aspicite in gentibus et videte et admiramini et obstupescite quia
opus factum est in diebus vestris quod nemo credet cum narrabitur

On the question of "true passives" I should refrain from comment. It appears
that the agent of AFANISQHTE is not identical with the addressee but I
suppose even that is debatable. It isn't clear to me who is being addressed
here. The prophet raised the question but that does not mean he is
automatically the addressee. The 2nd person plural ending for several
imperatives is against it. The prophet may be included.

F.I. Andersen and others render AFANISQHTE as "disappear." I have a small
problem with that since I take the addressee to be coreferential with hUMAS
in Hab 1:6. It seems like the imperative AFANISQHTE is functioning as a
declaration of what is about to take place. For that reason I would suspect
the implied agent is TOUS CALDAIOUS (Hab 1:6).

HAB. 1:6 DIOTI IDOU EGW EXEGEIRW EF' hUMAS TOUS CALDAIOUS TOUS MACHTAS TO
EQNOS TO PIKRON KAI TO TACINON TO POREUOMENON EPI TA PLATH THS GHS TOU
KATAKLHRONOMHSAI SKHNWMATA OUK AUTOU


> Also in the Apoc. the narrator is
> scolded because he was so impressed (perhaps goo goo eyed) with the woman. Is
> this also parallel?
> 
 
Perhaps this is similar, if we take Habakkuk as the addressee, but
Rev. 17:6-8 does not use  QAUMAZW as an imperative and it does not include
the command AFANISQHTE.

greetings,

Clay


--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the B-Greek mailing list