[B-Greek] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS

Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Mon Dec 1 12:57:41 EST 2003


I think there is another aspect of the question. In order to clarify that, I have to write about three other texts first.

1  In 1 Peter 2: 8 we have a grammatically odd construction: APISTOUSIN DE LIQOS hON APEDOKIMASZAN hOI OIKODOMOUNTES. LIQOS is nominative. However it is depending of APISTOUSIN. A number of manuscripts tried to remove the difficulty by reading LIQON.
The reason why Peter did not respect the grammatical rules, is obvious. He is quoting the 118th Psalm and he must have had some reason why he did not want to change the words.
I think we have to express in our translations this notion hidden in the Greek text, e.g. by putting the quotation between " .".
On the level of the exegesis we are confronted with the question which notions that we find in Psalm 118 play a role in the understanding of the text of Peter.

2  A second case can be found in Revelation 1: 5: KAI APO IHSOU CRISTOU, hO MARTUS, hO PISTOS, hO PRWTOTOKOS TWN NEKRWN KAI hO ARCWN TWN BASILEWN THS GHS. After CRISTOU John changes suddenly from genitive to nominative.
The case is similar to the first one. John is quoting too. The reliable witness comes from Psalm 89: 38, the firstborn and the ruler of the kings of the earth from verse 28 of the same psalm. John must have read the Hebrew preposition be- there as meaning in (heaven). TWN NEKRWN is an addition by John.
My remarks about translation and exegesis can be repeated here.

3  In Revelation 1: 4 we have APO hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMENOS. After APO we expect a genitive. We find a nominative.
In this case we find a quotation again. In Exodus 3: 14 (LXX) we find hO WN as a translation of Gods name. About hO ERCOMENOS professor Conrad already wrote the necessary things. It seems that hO HN is again an addition by John. Or does anyone know an Old Testament text from which it can be the translation/adaptation? 
The strange construction hO HN must be due to the fact that the Greek language does not possess a separate participle of the imperfect.
My remarks about translation and exegesis can be repeated here again.

We find a rule. It seems that in quoting the Old Testament Peter and John can put aside the rules about the Greek cases in order to maintain the words of the Old Testament. By this procedure the quotation is marked as a quotation.

Now "our" text, Revelation 1: 8. Here the cases are normal, but only because hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMENOS is grammatically an apposition to a nominative. The addition hO PANTOKRATOR is a quotation too, from Amos 3: 13 (LXX).
I think here again we have to indicate in our translation that John is quoting. The Greek text does not mark the fact here, but the text of the same words (except hO PANTOKRATOR of course) in 1: 4 did.

Arie Dirkzwager


Dr. A. Dirkzwager
Hoeselt, Belgium
e-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- 
Van: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
Aan: "Ted Shoemaker" <tedsmath at yahoo.com>
CC: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Verzonden: zondag 30 november 2003 22:26
Onderwerp: Re: [B-Greek] Rev. 1:8 ERCOMENOS


> At 11:38 AM -0800 11/30/03, Ted Shoemaker wrote:
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >In the middle of Revelation 1:8 we read:
> >hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMENOS
> >
> >The King James Version renders this
> >"which is, and which was, and which is to come".
> >
> >I have more than one question.
> >
> >(1)  Are the KJV (and many other translations)
> >     legitimate in making such a rendering here?
> 
> I'd have no quarrel with that as Elizabethan English.
> 
> >(2)  If so, why?
> >     That is, I thought hO ERCOMENOS
> >     meant "the one who comes", not
> >     "the one which is to come".
> >     Maybe that's too fine a distinction to
> >     quibble about -- but I think there's a difference.
> 
> cf. Mt 3:11, 11:3, 21:9, 23:39; Mk 11:9, Lk 7:19-20, 19:38, Jn 1:27, etc., etc.
> I think this is probably a Semitism and represents ha-BA
> cf. Ps 117.26 EULOGHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU ... which is cited
> is some of the above passages at the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.
> 
> >(3)  What is the linguistic significance of using
> >     hO ERCOMENOS instead of a future tense?
> >     Reading the whole sentence, I would have
> >     expected to see "who was, who is, and who will be".
> 
> At least ERCOMENOS works with the definite article hO to create a
> substantive; you ought to have asked about hO HN: that's the grammatical
> no-no in this text. The text is perfectly intelligible, but it's just not
> normal Greek.
> 
> >I hope we can keep the discussion within the parameters
> >of the group's regulations.  Anyone who wishes to talk
> >about the relevant theological implications is
> >welcome to do so, but please use private email.
> 
> Thank you, and if any persons DO wish to discuss the theology of this, I
> hope they will indeed respond to Ted privately, but I think that what is at
> stake in this question is intelligible in terms of linguistic usage alone.
> -- 
> 
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> 
> 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list