[B-Greek] Rev 13:18

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Jul 6 11:51:15 EDT 2004


Dear Daniel,

>Over the centuries most translators and scholars have seen this verse as a
>Greek Isopsephia riddle that refers to the number of the name "of-a-man" who
>is un-named. I grammatically understand this verse as follows: The number
>666 is a-number (a-component) of the unsaid man's name. In other words, the
>isopsephia number of the man's name is not 666, it is a number greater than
>666. In other words, using a predicate-nominative-grammar interpretation on
>the clause Ron mentioned, the
>term "of-a-man" can be seen as code for "of-a-number."

HH: This idea that 666 is a component of some larger name seems 
unnecessary. The word ARIQMOS ("number") can be definite in the 
second instance as well as the first and third. The noun precedes the 
verb as a predicate nominative, and in such cases it usually lacks 
the article. See Daniel Wallace, _Greek Grammar beyond the Basics_ 
pp. 248, 257.

Here, The Wisdom is ... The-One having a-mind, let-him-calculate the number
of-the beast, for it-is A-Number of-a-man ... and The Number of-it ... 666.

>1] Let us assume the man's number is 666. If that is true, the author could
>simply write the word "estin" before "666" and he would not be lying. But,
>he didn't say "estin 666" because then the verse would not be true.

HH: He didn't need to put ESTIN in there because it is implied in the 
verbless clause. The number of it is 666. The number 666 is the 
number of the beast.

				Yours,
				Harold Holmyard


>
>The Greek grammar of this verse is extremely tricky because it is so
>ambiguous. Let's perform a truth test on the verse to see why the author may
>have wrote it the way he did.
>
>1] Let us assume the man's number is 666. If that is true, the author could
>simply write the word "estin" before "666" and he would not be lying. But,
>he didn't say "estin 666" because then the verse would not be true.
>
>2] Now let us assume the man's number is greater than 666. If true, the
>author could then say that "the number" ... "666" was "A-NUMBER of-a-man."
>This is exactly what he said and the verse as it stands is now true.
>
>Well that's my take on the verse. Anything else, such as "the revelation"
>(the solution of the man's name and number), is definitely off topic.
>
>Daniel Gleason
>
>
>---
>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