[B-Greek] The relative pronouns in Ephesians 6:17 and Revelation 5:8‏

Leonard Jayawardena leonardj at live.com
Thu Oct 14 06:48:10 EDT 2010



________________________________
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:54:35 +0800
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The relative pronouns in Ephesians 6:17 and
> Revelation 5:8‏
> From: john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
> To: leonardj at live.com
> CC: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>
>
> It appears to me that Leonard understands the simile in Revelation 5:8
> to be QUMIAMATWN construed with PROSEUCAI. If this is the case, then
> the relative pronoun is incorrectly used and needs to be explained;
> which Leonard has done.

LJ: The relative pronoun is not incorrectly used. John knew the standard rules of Greek grammar, as can be demonstrated from the book, and the use of a feminine relative pronoun in this case is no more incorrect than the use of personal and relative pronouns in reference to referents of neuter nouns when they are persons. 

> I do not understand the simile in this manner, but rather I see it as
> KIQARAN KAI FIALAS CRUSAS GEMOUSAS QUMIAMATWN being construed with
> PROSEUCAI TWN hAGIWN. That is, I see the kithara and the golden bowls
> as the saints and the “sweet music” and the “smoldering incense”, both
> ascending toward heaven, as the prayers.

LJ: To begin with "simile" is not the word. As I understand it, a simile is an expression containing the word "as" or "like," e.g., "as strong as a lion," or "like a lion." The correct word here is "symbol." The book of revelation is a book of symbols and a right understanding of its contents depends on a right interpretation of its symbols. Some of its symbols are interpreted in the book itself, e.g., in the very text under discussion and in Rev. 4:5, where the seven lamps are said to be the seven spirits of God. Symbols or symbolical language not explained in the book itself can be unravelled by the rest of the scriptures by following the allusions thereto contained in the book.(Incidentally, it is a remarkable fact that all allusions in Revelation are only to the canonical scriptures, excluding the Apocrypha.) In no other biblical book is correct grammatical analysis so inextricably linked with sound exegesis as in the book of Revelation. If you don't understand what the book says properly, your grammatical analysis will be imperfect, including seeing many grammatical "mistakes," or solecisms therein, even where they may not in reality exist.

with regard to you take on this passage, I don't see how you can interpret it the way you have done. Where are the various symbols explained--inside or outside the book--in the way you understand them? what is your antecedent for the relative pronoun hAI/ and how does your interpretation result in a more "correct" use of the relative pronoun than the way I have explained it? 


> The down side is that we have one less example of poor Greek usage by
> the Revelator.
>
>
>
> The up side is that the grammar and simile work together.
>
> Conderning Ephesians 6:17:
>
> I consider the simile to be PNEUMATOS construed with hRHMA QEOU, then
> the simile and the grammar work together. To consider the simile
> something else will require an explanation of why the grammar of the
> relative pronoun is wrong.

LJ: The grammar of Ephes. 6:17 is NOT wrong. Please read my penultimate post for the two possibilities of understanding the relative pronoun in this text, neither of which is "wrong."


Leonard Jayawardena 		 	   		  



More information about the B-Greek mailing list