From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 28 1997 - 12:47:43 EST
In light of recent stock market developments, I took the liberty to
change the subject line a little to bring it line with "happenings" as
well as with our discussion on this passage.
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 05:19:36 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
>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
>>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
>>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.
>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
>see that it actually reads EIDON TAS YUCAS TWN PEPELEKISMENWN;
>moreover thetext 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
>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?
Yes, the partitive genitive makes good sense. But, what about the
accusative YUCAS ANQRWPWN? If we take the last KAI epexegetically, "that
is, souls of men," then the sense would be simply that all the preceding
partitive genitives describe where the soul or heart of man really is.
Boy, how relevant for today.
>Consequently, for my part, I'm not really ready to deal with the
>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.
Good point. Are we there yet?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:34 EDT