[B-Greek] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)
Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212)
rel21x at charter.net
Tue May 23 11:32:56 EDT 2006
George,
I think the reason why many insist that DOULOS => slave, is because of what
the lexicons tell us on this point and the fact that slavery was prominent
in the 1st century Roman world. As many as 1/3 of the population of Rome
were salves. BAGD states "'servant' for 'slave' is largely confined to
Biblical translation and early American times; in normal usage at the
present time the two words are carefully distinguished" (205). This is
preceded by the only definition of the word that BAGD gives, which is
"slave." What he is saying, is that our idea "servant" does not connote the
full force of the term, compared to DOULOW => become a slave, enslave,
DOULEIA => slavery, DOULEUW=> be a slave, DOULH= female salve. There must be
half a dozen words in the NT for servant, such as PAIS, OIKETHS, and
hUPHRETHS, that may show both connotations. Several of these terms appear
together in Luke 15, which gives a good overview within the same context.
But it looks like DOULOS is a term with a singular definition, and those 1st
century writers who choose the term knew exactly what it meant. Similar
terms are CRISTOS and STAUROS/STAUROW. These became terms of honor in
Christianity, but they were not so in the secular Roman world.
I realize that this idea cuts across the grain of a western 21st century
mind, but DOULOS is one of the relationships that Christians and Jews hold
to God (cf. the Servant of Jehovah passages in Isaiah). A DOULOS may perform
many functions, but the fact remains that s/he is a DOULOS and the
KURIOS/OIKODESPOTHS has absolute authority, even the authority of life and
death if the DOULOS rebels or deserts.
Dave Smith
Hudson, NC
----- Original Message -----
From: <gfsomsel at juno.com>
To: <dan-bgreek at hotmail.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 07:21
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)
I really don't know why people insist on portraying the word DOULOS as
"slave." While the word certainly can be used to designate one who is bound
and under the authority of another even to the point of being ignominiously
under the control of another, I don't think this is truly the aspect which
is to be emphasized. Paul particularly portrays himself as the servant of
Christ, but I don't think the emphasis is really upon the servile aspect.
He also portrayed himself as an ambassador of Christ. The ambassador was
likewise a servant of the ruler whom he represented, but he also spoke with
AUTHORITY on his behalf. It is as an AMBASSADOR SERVANT that we represent
Christ. It is much like the Rabshakeh in 2 Kg 18 who spoke with authority at
the walls of Jerusalem and with an army at his back to enforce his words.
Is this servile? See BDAG s.v. DOULOS 2b. I am reminded of Colin Powells
repeated statement when asked whether he would continue as Secretary of
State -- he said, "I serve at the pleasure of the President."
I think the author of the Apocalypse is explicitly claiming to be John the
Apostle who witnessed the crucifiction and who is credited with the
authorship of the fourth gospel. In saying that he witnessed the Word of
God he is making explicit reference thereto. Whether the writer was in fact
the Apostle John is another matter. It would seem that he is claiming to be
such. Apocalypses are not normally written by the person whose name they
bear. It would be totally uncharacteristic of the genre for this to be the
case. It is claimed by some that EMARTURHSEN here is an epistolary aorist,
but I don't think it meets the qualifications for this. Epistolary aorists
are not normally in the 3rd person.
george
gfsomsel
_________
-- "Dan Gleason" <dan-bgreek at hotmail.com> wrote:
gfsomsel wrote
The revelation is about and through Jesus Christ.
God gave it to him (AUTWi)
that [he (i.e. Jesus Christ)] might reveal to his [God's] servants. He
[Jesus]
signified it [very important point that it is "signified"] by sending it
through
his [Jesus'] messenger / angel to his [Jesus'] servant, John. He [John]
witnessed [viewed / testified] [concerning] the Word of God, even the
martyrdom
of Jesus Christ which he saw [THIS ASSUMES JOHN OF PATMOS IS JOHN THE
APOSTLE - MANY SCHOLARS DISPUTE THIS].
APOKALUYIS IHSOU CRISTOU
hHN EDWKEN AUTW hO QEOS
DEIXAI TOIS DOULOIS AUTOU
hA DEI GENESQAI EN TACEI
KAI ESHMANEN APOSTEILAS DIA TOU AGGELOU AUTOU
TW DOULW AUTOU IWANNH
Is there any reason why this interpretation of the referent to the pronouns
is incorrect?
A Revelation of Jesus Christ ...
which God gave to Him (God's Messenger) to show to his Slaves (members of
the 7 assemblies) ...
the Things (ambiguous) which have to happen in Quickness.
And He (God) signified it, having sent it through his Messenger to his slave
John ...
who gave Testimony to the Word of God ...
and to the Testimony of Jesus Christ (not past testimony, rather testimony
to come) of every Thing he saw.
Dan Gleason
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ---
> 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