[B-Greek] TW AGGELW in Rev. 2:1

Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 26 17:03:47 EST 2010



I found it online! For any new list member, who like me, was not be familiar with this version, it can be found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/
I do not know, though, if it is connected with the NET.  Forgive my ignorance.
 
B.Harris
Dear Dr. Conrad -

Thanks!  ... one clarification though ... you wrote: 

>As for the citation from LXX Num 12:2, while the Hebrew MT has ‏בְּמֹשֶׁה֙ [b'MoSHeH] and ‏בָּ֣נוּ [BaNuW], the LXX text has καὶ εἶπαν Μὴ Μωυσῇ μόνῳ >λελάληκεν κύριος; οὐχὶ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐλάλησεν; [KAI EIPAN MH MWUSHi MONWi LELALHKEN KURIOS; OUCI KAI hHMIN ELALHSEN?] for which >the literal NETS version is "taken an Ethiopian woman. 2And they said, “The Lord has not spoken only to Moyses, has he? Did he not also speak to us?”  So the >LXX hardly seems a convincing support for an understanding of TWi AGGELWi as instarumental dative.

I was not following what you said about the reading of Num. 12:2 because the NET reads,  (for he had married an Ethiopian woman). 2 They said, “Has the Lord only spoken "through" Moses? Has he not also spoken "through" us?  Then I noticed you did say the NET, but NETS.  (I assume the "S" stands for the Septuagint). Is this version available online? Is it connected with the NET? 
 
Sincerely,
B.Harris




________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 6:13:55 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] TW AGGELW in Rev. 2:1

On Jan 25, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Blue Meeksbay wrote:
> TW AGGELW THS EFESINHS EKKLHSIAS GRAYON TADE LEGEI hO KPRTWN TOUS EPTA ASTEPAS EN TH DEZIA AUTOU hO PERIPA TWN EN MESW TWN EPTA LUCNIWN TWN CPUSWN  Rev. 2:1
>  
> In reading Rev. 2:1, I am trying to find out, not which alternative is grammatically “probable,” (I already have an opinion on that point), but what alternatives are grammatically “possible.” Knowing that many times context determines our understanding, let me lay out a few “presuppositions.” (For example, if a mother had a son stationed in Iraq, and, as such, she sent a care package to him every month, and a friend, knowing this, gave a package to her and said, “Please give this to Jack.” We would know that the word “give” had a connotation of “send,” or “mail.” Whereas, if someone heard the friend say, “Please give this to Jack –” but did not know that Jack was stationed overseas, but, rather thought he was living in the house, would think  “give” had the connotation of “handing over” to him.)
>  
> 1)      The type of John’s banishment was a Roman form of “relagatio,” which allowed him some freedom to continue his affairs.
> 2)      Because of point 1)  John, more than likely, continued his oversight of various churches and so had some co-workers with him (perhaps fellow prophets, Rev. 22:9; 19:10) who were the messengers to the churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation, and who traveled back and forth to those churches, (much like Paul utilized, e.g. II Tim. 4: 11-12).
> 3)      AGGELLOS is a term for a human “messenger.”
> 4)      The Byzantine text.
>  
> If one accepts the presuppositions above could TW AGGELW be understood as a “dative of indirect object?  “What you see, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea….For the messenger of the church in Ephesus, write… etc.” (This is assuming the dative is showing which messenger’s hands the copy of the writing is being placed for delivery. This thought was suggested in an article from the 19th century.)
>  
>  
> Or, if one accepts such presuppositions above, is it possible that TW AGGELW could be understood as an “instrumental dative?”  What you see, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea….By the messenger of the church in Ephesus, write… etc.”  (This seems the most remote alternative. I read this in the same article from the 19th century. He offers Col. 4:18 as an equivalent example with the supplied ellipsis, “I write.” Also he suggests such usage is seen in the LXX at Num. 12:2 “by Moses,” rather than “to Moses.”). He does not mention anything about the verb not being in a passive voice, but sees it more as a “dative of instrument,” rather than a “dative of agency.” He admits that, if not for other difficulties with the passage in Revelation, he would admit the dative of person, since
> that is the general usage, but because of certain difficulties he prefers a dative of instrument.)
>            
>  
> And, finally, the most “probable” alternative, TW AGGELW is a “dative of person.” What you see, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea….To the messenger of the church in Ephesus, write… etc.”  
>  
> I know so much depends on one’s presuppositions, but assuming the presuppositions above are correct, are any, or all of the alternatives above grammatically “possible?” In other words, if John had “messengers” staying with him on Patmos from the various churches could TW AGGELW ever be understood by John in the way suggested by the author above?

I know this is a serious question; so much labor and care has been taken in its formulation. But is it really a question about the Greek construction? Could TWi AGGELWi be an nstrumental dative meaning that the AGGELOS in question is somehow a means of communication rather than a spokesperson for the the congregation indicated by the genitive qualifying phrase. I suppose that this could not be ruled out absolutely, especially if we add to the assumptions tallied above the reputation of the author of Revelation as a notorious writer of questionable Greek.

What has not been cited is the data offered by BDAG s.v. GRAFW. Here under §2 " to express thought in writing" is c:
c. of correspondence write (to) someone τινί [TINI](Plut., Pomp. 634 [29, 3]; pap; 1 Macc 12:22; 2 Macc 2:16; Da 6:26; ParJer; Jos., Ant. 12, 16; Mel., HE 4, 26, 10) Ro 15:15; 2 Cor 2:4, 9 v.l.; 7:12; Phlm 21; 2 Pt 3:15; 1J 2:12ff. δι᾿ ὀλίγων [DI' OLIGWN] briefly, a few lines 1 Pt 5:12. διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου [DIA MELANOS KAI KALAMOU] w. pen and ink 3J 13 (cp. ParJer 6:19). The content of the writing is quoted: Rv 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; write someth. to someone τινί τι [TINI TI] (Plut., Cic. 879 [37, 1]; pap; 1 Macc: 10:24; 11:29; 13:35) 1 Cor 14:37; 2 Cor 1:13; Gal 1:20; 3J 9. τινί τι περί τινος [TINI TI PERI TINOS] (1 Macc 11:31) Ac 25:26; 1J 2:26. τινὶ περί τινος [TINI PERI TINOS] (1 Macc 12:22; Jos., Vi. 62; Mel., HE 4, 26, 10) 2 Cor 9:1; 1 Th 4:9; 5:1; Jd 3. περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε (μοι v.l.) [PERI DE hWN EGRAYATE] as to the matters about which you wrote
(me) 1 Cor 7:1 (Pla., Ep. 13 p. 361a περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐπέστελλές μοι [PERI DE hWN EPESTELLES MOI] ; Socrat., Ep. 7, 1 ὑπὲρ ὧν γράφεις [hUPER hWN GRAFEIS] ); γ. τινί  [G. TINI] give someone directions in writing w. inf. foll. Ac 18:27; also w. ὅπως [hOPWS] ibid. D.—γ. διά τινος [G. DIA TINOS] signifies either that the person referred to in the διά [DIA]-phrase participated in writing the document (Dionys. of Cor. in Eus., HE 4, 23, 11; cp. IG XIV, 956B, 10f ὑπογράψαντες διὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἡμῶν hUPOGRAYANTES DIA TOU ADELFOU hHMWN]) 1 Pt 5:12, as some comm. hold, or that this person is its bearer IRo 10:1; IPhld 11:2; ISm 12:1; Pol 14. The latter mng. obtains in διὰ χειρός τινος [DIA CEIROS TINOS] Ac 15:23.

Among the texts cited above there is no indication of an insrumental dative. One has to wonder, too, whether one would be using an instrumental dative of a person rather than a construction involving DIA + genitive for a person involved in a communicative process.

As for the citation from LXX Num 12:2, while the Hebrew MT has ‏בְּמֹשֶׁה֙ [b'MoSHeH] and ‏בָּ֣נוּ [BaNuW], the LXX text has καὶ εἶπαν Μὴ Μωυσῇ μόνῳ λελάληκεν κύριος; οὐχὶ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐλάλησεν; [KAI EIPAN MH MWUSHi MONWi LELALHKEN KURIOS; OUCI KAI hHMIN ELALHSEN?] for which the literal NETS version is "taken an Ethiopian woman. 2And they said, “The Lord has not spoken only to Moyses, has he? Did he not also speak to us?”  So the LXX hardly seems a convincing support for an understanding of TWi AGGELWi as instarumental dative.

It would seem to me then that an understanding of TWi AGGELWi in Rev 2:1 as an instrumental dative is not quite impossible, given that the author of Revelation was not always in command of good school Greek, but its likelihood is extremely remote.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)


      
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


________________________________

From: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Tue, January 26, 2010 1:34:25 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] TW AGGELW in Rev. 2:1



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list