[B-Greek] Singular Rel-pro in Rev 13:8; the plural Rel-pro in Rev 17:8

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Nov 7 14:07:28 EST 2005


On Nov 7, 2005, at 1:36 PM, virgil newkirk wrote:

> Carl,
>
> I wasn't thinking or suggesting that the phrasing in 17:8 was actually
> "derived from" 13:8; what was in my mind was, here is the author  
> essentially
> writing again about all the people living on the earth and their  
> attention
> to the beast ( I guess I am assuming it's the same subject..should  
> I not?)
> and yet he writes EPI TO BIBLION where before he wrote in a similar
> description of things EPI TWi BIBLIWi; should I think that his  
> Greek went
> from good to bad in this short span ? (Please, I am not being  
> sarcastic..I
> just don't understand) Or am I distorting what you've suggested  
> about the
> flux of Greek ? If it is a case of solecism or bad Greek it puzzles  
> me why
> it occurred so close together in two different manifestations ?

Virgil, you're asking questions that I'm not prepared to answer. It  
may very well be that the author had in mind the phrasing or the idea  
from 13:8 when composing 17:8, but if so, he phrased it differently  
although probably with the same intent. I don't think it's all that  
unusual for an author to use somewhat different phrasing when he/she  
expresses the same idea within a single document as here: EN TWi  
BIBLIWi in 13:9, EPI TO BIBLION in 17:8, pretty clearly with the same  
intended sense; EN TWi BIBLIWi is a construction we might expect with  
GEGRAPTAI while EPI TO BIBLION is not what we might expect; that's  
why I said it might be a solecism, with which this book of Revelation  
is replete, or it might even be an instance of use of the accusative  
as the standard object-of-prepositon case used with any preposition  
-- as in Greek of later periods.

> Since he used hWN in 17:8 could there be another reason he used hOU  
> in 13:8,
> other than what you've suggested ? You did say:
>
> "
> What "might" be noted in the clause "hOU OU GEGRAPTAI TO ONOMA
> AUTOU" is the Semitizing construction wherein hOU is repeated in
> AUTOU as is common with ASHER clauses in Hebrew."
>
> This for me is another one of those cases where the words.."might be,"
> "could be," "possibly," lead to not being able to be sure about the  
> accuracy
> and clarity contained in the grammar.

What I meant was that the construction of the clause 'hOU OU  
GEGRAPTAI TO ONOMA AUTOU" is rather like such common Semitizing,  
"translation-Greek" phrases as we read in the LXX, e.g. Gen. 1:12 KAI  
EXHNEGKEN hH GH BOTANHN CORTOU SPEIRON SPERMA KATA GENOS KAI KAQ'  
hOMOIOTHTA KAI XULON KARPIMON POIOUN KARPON hOU TO SPERMA AUTOU EN  
AUTWi KATA GENOS EPI THS GHS. Here POIOUN KARPON hOU TO SPERMA AUTOU  
EN AUTWi represents the Hebrew exactly in that AUTOU repeats the  
substance of hOU, so that if one translated it literally into English  
it would be: "fruiting tree producing fruit OF WHICH the seed OF IT  
is in it."

All I meant by using my "might be" was to suggest that the phrasing  
was odd but it might be accounted for by the author carrying over a  
Semitic expression into his Greek composition. I don't know for sure  
if that's what the author did, but it is at least plausible.

> I probably won’t use the word "mystical" in the future, although it  
> is a
> word for me that simply refers to what is "real." BTW..I did not  
> use the
> phrase "mystical reality."

I think you WOULD do well to avoid the word "mystical" in the future  
in reference to grammatical constructions in B-Greek discussion,  
ESPECIALLY if you mean "mystical" to refer to "what is real."

> In view of that allow me to ask simply:
>
> "
> Couldn't we take APO KATABOLHS KOSMOU as modifying both the book's  
> existence
> found in 17:8, and the one who has become as slain in 13:8 ?"

I guess that's a possibility, at least theoretically, but I think (as  
did the editors of NET) that it's more likely that APO KATABOLHS  
KOSMOU in 13:8 was intended to be construed with GEGRAPTAI.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at ioa.com>
> To: "virgil newkirk" <virgilsalvage1 at msn.com>
> Cc: "B-Greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Singular Rel-pro in Rev 13:8; the plural Rel- 
> pro in
> Rev 17:8
>
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2005, at 1:28 AM, virgil newkirk wrote:
>
>> Carl,
>>
>> I've read how the singular relative pronoun may sometimes have a
>> plural antecedent; it seems though, that it's quite a stretch for
>> "all" the people living on the earth to be reduced to or
>> represented by a singular "hOU OU GEGRAPTAI TO ONOMA AUTOU"; I
>> don't understand. Why the change to the plural hWN in Rev 17:8
>
> I would not assume that the phrasing of Rev 17:8 is derived from that
> of 13:8. What might be noted in the clause "hOU OU GEGRAPTAI TO ONOMA
> AUTOU" is the Semitizing construction wherein hOU is repeated in
> AUTOU as is common with ASHER clauses in Hebrew. Although BDAG lists
> a number of anomalous varieties of pronominal non-agreement with
> antecedent, this doesn't really seem to fall into it. I'd be more
> inclined to think this is one of those not-at-all-uncommon
> "solecisms" of Revelation.
>
>> Another thing that puzzles:
>>
>> In Rev 13:8 John writes the dative prepositional phrase EN TWi
>> BIBLIWi to describe (I presume) the place in which TO ONOMA AUTOU
>> did not become written; then in Rev 17:8 John writes the accusative
>> prepositional phrase EPI TO BIBLION; again, I don't understand.
>
> While others might understand it differently, I'd say simply that EPI
> TO BIBLION is a solecism (from the perspective of school grammar) --
> it's just bad Greek. On the other hand, as I keep noting, Koine Greek
> is a language in flux: one of the currents in its movement away from
> classical toward modern usage is increasing usage of the accusative
> forms of nouns as objects of all prepositions. And -- as I said
> above, I wouldn't necessarily assume that the phraseology of 17:8
> depends directly upon the phrasing of 13:8.
>
>> Also, couldn’t TO BIBLION THS ZWHS and TOU ESQAGMENOU in a mystical
>> (read reality) kind of way have existed APO KATABOLHS KOSMOU. That
>> is to say, couldn't we take APO KATABOLHS KOSMOU as modifying both
>> the book's existence found in 17:8, and the one who has become as
>> slain in 13:8 ?
>
> This gets into speculation that goes beyond what the Greek text as a
> Greek text says; I'd prefer not to talk about "mystical reality."
> /


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list