[B-Greek] Rev. 1:10

Lira rosangelalira at terra.com.br
Thu Dec 4 05:03:26 EST 2003


Gfsomsel,

 

You point out that the subsequent words of Ignatius in this phrase would be confusing if they referred to the word "life". I would say that much of what the church fathers say is confusing. From what I know of the patristic literature, it frequently has an illogical flow of disconnected thoughts. 

You ask, for instance: "But what then do we do with DI' AUTOU KAI QANATOU AUTOU?  To whom does it refer if not to Christ and his death?" Yes, this is indeed a problem. Where is the word "Christ" or "Lord" here to which AUTOU could refer? It simply isn't there. 

That's precisely why there are authors who believe that the sentence would be still more confusing if the word HMERAN was supplied. See for instance what Kitto says:

"Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), that after kuriaken [Lord's] the word emeran [day] is to be understood. . . . Let us now look at the passage simply as it stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive to which autou can refer. This defect, so far from being remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of emera. Now if we take kuriake xon as simply `the life of the Lord,' having a more personal meaning, it certainly goes nearer to supplying the substantive to autou. . . . Thus upon the whole the meaning might be given thus:

"If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living according to our Lord's life (in which, as it were, our life has risen again through him, &c.). (Cyc. Bib. Lit., art. Lord's day).

I reiterate what I said before, that the text is both obscure and an object of controversy, so it is valueless as a possible evidence. 

Rosangela Lira


More information about the B-Greek mailing list