From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 1997 - 06:19:36 EST
At 1:17 PM -0600 10/25/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>the last five words of Rev 18:13 read, ... KAI SWMATWN KAI YUCAI
>I find it particularly interesting that all translations checked so far,
>except the NIV, render this combination of words in Rev. 18:13 by
>something like, "and slaves and human lives" (NASV), "slaves and other
>humans" (CEV), "slaves and souls of men" (KJV), etc. The NIV has "and
>bodies and souls of men."
>Now, I can understand why SWMATWN in this context might be taken as
>"slaves," but two other considerations tend to suade me towards the NIV
>rendering. First, there is no other NT precedent for taking SWMA as
>"slave." Second, the conjunction with YUCAI seems to suggest that
>SWMATWN should be taken in contrasting or complementary parallel with
>YUCAI, denoting both the spiritual and physical aspects of man. Of
>course, YUCAI can denote the whole person, as well as just the spiritual
>part of man, but in the next occurrence of YUCAI in the book (20:4) it
>does seem to be set in contrast to the bodies of those who had been
>beheaded, EIDON ... TAS YUCAI TWN PEPELEKISMENWN.
Well, here's another query that has sat without response for three days. I
guess I was stunned by reading that last phrase, EIDON TAS YUCAI TWN
PEPELEKISMENWN. TAS YUCAI--I did a double take: is this another of the
"solecisms" of the author of Revelation, but no, upon checking the text I
see that it actually reads EIDON TAS YUCAS TWN PEPELEKISMENWN; moreover the
text in 18:13 actually gives an accusative, and reads ...KAI SWMATWN KAI
YUCAS ANQRWPWN; moreover, UBS4 punctuates with a comma after SWMATWN. It
would appear then that SWMATWN need not be coordinated with YUCAS ANQRWPWN.
In fact, the three genitives grouped together in the phrase with SWMATWN
are somewhat curious--hanging without an accusative clearly in view to hang
on (KAI hIPPWN KAI hREDWN KAI SWMATWN). The whole section 18:11-13 concerns
the grief merchants whose wares are no longer being purchased, and the bulk
of these verses is constituted by a lengthy catalogue of these wares.
That's what the strange ending of 18:13 is part of. I really wonder how to
take that string of three genitives preceding KAI YUCAS ANQRWPWN: are they
partitive genitives taking the place of accusatives and serving as objects
of OUDEIS AGORAZEI OUKETI back in 18:11?
Consequently, for my part, I'm not really ready to deal with the question
whether one or another of the committees that produced these versions has
translated the passage rightly; I think there are enough puzzles in the
Greek text to resolve first.
I don't know that what I've written can be called "thoughts." But at least
it was some mental agitation.
Still looking for light,
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:34 EDT