[b-greek] Rev 19:2c EK+Genitive"

From: virgilsalvage1 (virgilsalvage1@msn.com)
Date: Sun May 27 2001 - 18:16:02 EDT

To Iver and all,

  Iver commented with regards to TWN DOULWN AUTOU....

Since hAIMA is a common metaphor for death or as here: killing, we can
assume an
underlying semantic verb "to kill". The 2 Kings 9:7 reference nicely
clarifies that the EK
phrase indicates the agent or power (Hebrew: hand) behind the killing and
the genitive TWN
DOULWN AUTOU would then be the object. So, one might translate "and he
avenged that she
killed his servants" or "he avenged her killing of his servants"? Most
translations do not make it clear that she was responsible for the killings.
English Version is an exception as it says: "But God has judged her and made
her pay the
price for murdering his servants.")

  It seems to me Iver that if we take the perspective that AIMA refers to
the "act" of killing, we miss the point that this is "blood" which contains
and speaks of the life. Also, if we take this as killing then the genitive
would indicate to "killing" that it was a "servant kind of killing" and I
believe this would have to be taken that a killing had happened and it was
characterized or had the type of..." servant". The subject, I believe, here
in Rev 19:2c seems to be not killing but the EXEDIKHSE. The Lord our God
from verse 1 has done something....avenged, made up for or made it right
that life had been stopped. This is represented by the AIMA. Blood spoken of
this way is blood out of the body. Life had ended, been stopped. That is
what is indicated here; not the killing act itself. We can know this because
the genitive follows and gives specification to AIMA. The focus then becomes
from John to us....the blood which was the life that has been spilled, it
was special blood. It was blood TWN DOULWN characterized by ones who
"were....in a real and established way... actually servants. The focus is
not the killing...it's the quality and character of whose blood it was. And
then there is more qualification added to present the specification that was
the blood...that was the servant...these were TWN DOULWN...." AUTOU " These
were indeed some particular kind of servant...AUTOU genitive giving
specification to servant...They had the actual characteristic of Him.

   What is suggested by the above mentioned translations; or rather I should
say what they do is change the focus from what kind of people and what kind
of experience characterized them....to the point that they were killed and
by whom. This, I believe takes away from what John wrote and meant when he
chose to put these words in the genitive case.

   The suggestion above that it could be translated...she killed his
servants neutralizes the genitive giving quality and distinction to what
kind of servants they....reducing it to only that they were his servants
rather than they were the servants who had gained Him as their life and
distinction. That's a significant difference, it seems to me that we can
gain by understanding the import and the concept behind the genitive case.

Virgil Newkirk
Salt Lake City, Utah

B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:58 EDT