Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by MrMacSon »

archibald wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:34 am I know all that and take it into account.
Yet you tried to proposed them as good or straight-forward evidence previously -
archibald wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:01 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:56 am Can you give me some passage similar to Rev 13:4 (as to relative clarity of the construct) but historicist? I doubt you can.
Well if I'm allowed to give you something from the NT then I give you the gospels. :)

Other than that I'd have given you Josephus and Tacitus. :)

To add to what I said about implied and parsimonious in the epistles.

and two days ago -
archibald wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:10 am Ok. Until I hear a better theory, I'm happy to run, for the sake of probability, with the [Jesus] that has more actual evidence, starting with what's in the epistles and elsewhere, including Josephus and other historians.
You're posting simplistic, superficial assertions like you're an equally simplistic, superfical church-attending Christian apologist
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by archibald »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:12 am Yet you tried to proposed them as good or straight-forward evidence previously
I don't remember saying or suggesting that they are good or straight-forward evidence.
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:12 am and two days ago -
archibald wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:10 am Ok. Until I hear a better theory, I'm happy to run, for the sake of probability, with the [Jesus] that has more actual evidence, starting with what's in the epistles and elsewhere, including Josephus and other historians.
At that time, we were discussing the idea that someone(s) later decided to retrofit the stories back to the 1st C and Judea, and we had discussed the nature of early christianity in relation to that, if you recall correctly. I was referring to hearing a better theory for that. You appear to have amended my post so that it now has the word Jesus in it and reads as if I was referring to him and not a theory about retrofitting. At least you flagged it up, I suppose.

I'm still interested, if you now want to elaborate on your theory about the retrofitting.
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:12 am You're posting simplistic, superficial assertions like you're an equally simplistic, superfical church-attending Christian apologist
I can't respond in detail just now. It's Sunday. I have to attend afternoon prayers shortly.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:21 amI agree that the perfect passive participle of the verb "slay" is perfectly normal in the sense of "the slain bird" or "the slain lamb". And I also agree that the perfect passive participle can be prefectly natural with the preposition απο and the phrase "απο καταβολης κοσμου", as in the case of the Matthew passage. But I don't agree that the perfect passive participle of the particular verb "slay", either in Greek or English, is in any way natural with the phrase "απο καταβολη κοσμου", which I believe must be translated with the meaning "since" or "ever since".
Do you have the same issue with the word "dead," then? "The lamb has been dead since yesterday, and we are eating it tonight with rosemary and olive oil."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by Bernard Muller »

"The lamb has been dead since yesterday, and we are eating it tonight with rosemary and olive oil."
"The lamb has been slain since yesterday, and we are eating it tonight with rosemary and olive oil."
Or
"The lamb has been slain at noon, and we are eating it tonight with rosemary and olive oil."

No awkward "since".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by Ben C. Smith »

"The lamb has been dead since yesterday." Do you see any problem with that?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by Ben C. Smith »

There is a good discussion of this very issue on B-Greek: http://ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtop ... f=6&t=3027. There is a quotation from Aune's commentary on Revelation:

David Aune, Revelation 6-16: At first glance it seems more natural, given the existing word order of the text, to connect the phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, "since the creation of the world" with ἐσφαγμένου, "slain" .... It is also grammatically possible to link the prepositional phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου to γέγραπται, "written," as it must be understood in the parallel passage in 17:8.... [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=b1ErD ... 22&f=false.]

And here is a representative sampling of the other comments from posters on that forum:

1. If ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου modified ἐσφαγμένου, then ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου would mean "in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered before the world was made". Grammatically, that may be possible, but I think it's much more likely that it modifies γέγραπται - πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς ... ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ("all who dwell on the earth whose name is not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world "), and the rest modifies the book: ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ("in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain").

2. I think a simple reading of the sentence itself favours associating ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου with ἐσφαγμένου (with Beale & Osborne). It is hard to imagine why John would separate the prepositional phrase from the antecedent by 12 words. Those who choose γέγραπται as the antecedent tend to argue from theological considerations and/or the parallel with Rev 17:8 (so Aune).

3. Grammatically, I think either reading is possible.

4. We’re agreed that the grammar doesn’t settle it, but I would still contend that anyone well versed in Koine reading this sentence for the first time would normally associate ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου with the immediately-preceding ἐσφαγμένου. Even Aune, who agrees with your reading, concedes that....

5. As a metacomment I want to say – even if it's a bit offtopic – that we can't detach language and real world background. It's very true that finding the original meaning of Bible or any other ancient text using our own theological or cultural background is always misleading and should be avoided. However, the original speakers/writers and listeners had their own background and that should be used. Grammar can't settle this down but cultural/historical/religious background could. If the book written ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου was familiar idea, then it must be it. If not, and a lamb slain ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου was familiar or more probable, then it must be it.

6. If there weren't theological considerations of some importance to people I don't think that any one would take ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου with γέγραπται. It's just too far separated. .... Having said that, the Greek of Revelation is not exactly normal Greek, and we should always be a little extra careful in drawing conclusions based on our broader understanding of the language. The author patently did not have an ammanuensis to correct his style when writing. What's the Greek for "misplaced modifier?" .... Yes, there is a parallel passage, but that doesn't mean that the author intends to say the same thing in that passage.

7. The strongest argument for γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ … ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, as I see it, is the parallel with verse 17:8, and the strongest argument for ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου is the grammatical structure of verse 13:8. Regarding the parallel with 17:8, while it indeed is a strong argument, I do also agree with Barry's note - one should not assume that means the author did not intend to expand the concept, and especially an author like this one. How one decides between these two is governed, not only by one’s theology, but also by how one views the characteristic language of both the genre and the author. The aversion to ἐσφαγμένου as the referent in v. 13:8 is clearly a time issue for many, whereas commentators like Beale view the phrase as one cloaked in the language of ‘prophetic time’. It is pretty difficult to speak about the local meaning of a word or a structure without taking this influence into account.

8. I'm wondering, though (with no intention of steering the discussion to the out-of-bounds arena of textual criticism), if the anomalous syntax of Revelation 13:8 as it stands in its redacted form could be explained by speculation on the history of this text. I think it's possible, especially in light of 17:8, to understand the 'original' reading of 13:8 to be οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, augmented to οὗ οὐ γέγραπται... εν τω βιβλιω της ζωης του αρνιου in parallel to 21:27, then further amplified to ...τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου in parallel to 5:12. If this reconstruction is viable, it would provide an explanation for ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου to modify γέγραπται despite the extensive intervening material and the proximity (in the final redaction) of ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου to ἐσφαγμένου.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:10 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:21 amI agree that the perfect passive participle of the verb "slay" is perfectly normal in the sense of "the slain bird" or "the slain lamb". And I also agree that the perfect passive participle can be prefectly natural with the preposition απο and the phrase "απο καταβολης κοσμου", as in the case of the Matthew passage. But I don't agree that the perfect passive participle of the particular verb "slay", either in Greek or English, is in any way natural with the phrase "απο καταβολη κοσμου", which I believe must be translated with the meaning "since" or "ever since".
Do you have the same issue with the word "dead," then? "The lamb has been dead since yesterday, and we are eating it tonight with rosemary and olive oil."
Nope, no problem with that of course. I think I see now, that an issue here is the English word "slain", because it can emphazise both the action itself, as in "killed", and also the state or condition of the victim, as in "dead", which you happen to mention here. I don't know, though, if you bring this example here with the word "dead" forward because you take it as a comparable parallel?

In any case, I take the word in the first meaning that I mention here, so that it could be swapped with the word "killed" but not, for example, the word "dead". And "dead since" works. "Killed since" doesn't work. "Slaughtered since" doesn't work either, I think, and the same with "slain since" and "εσφαγμενου απο". Don't you agree with this?

And there is no good reason that we don't translate "εσφαγμενου" with "slaughtered" instead of "slain", so I'm interested to hear from a native English speaker, would you also say that this is a natural word to connect with "since"?
"The lamb that has been slaughtered since the foundation of the world"?
I may be mistaken, but unless we're dealing with some theological-poetic conception, I really think this is an unnatural phrase, in English as well as in Greek.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by Bernard Muller »

"The lamb has been dead since yesterday ..." Do you see any problem with that?
Awkward. Rather, "The lamb died yesterday ..."

1 Co 1:23 "but we preach Christ crucified[perfect, passive, participle], a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,"
That is similar to "And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain[,] from the foundation of the world;"

About "dead": "And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb dead from the foundation of the world;"
That would suggest the lamb is still dead, but he is alive in heaven.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:58 pm
"The lamb has been dead since yesterday ..." Do you see any problem with that?
Awkward. Rather, "The lamb died yesterday ..."
Consider:

"The ALUMNUS has just received information that Amos T. Roger... has been dead since December 7, 1913. .... Word has just reached the ALUMNUS that Frank E. Lodeman... has been dead since June 4, 1908." [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=VYUmA ... 22&f=false.]

"There's a wild conspiracy theory on social media that the Queen has been dead since 2016." [Link: https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/11/14/the-queen-is-dead.]

"The real Avril Lavigne has been dead since 2004." [Link: https://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/265587 ... acy-theory.]

"The coroner estimates that the star has been dead since Tuesday." [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=ijgkK ... 22&f=false.]

"Mr. Matthew McGregor has been dead since early spring, but his pay has been going on just the same." [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=QqPzV ... 22&f=false.]

"Feng Chen Zhou... has been dead since 1980, but her body still occupies the master bedroom of the family home." [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=GPEDA ... 22&f=false.]

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

Post by rakovsky »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:18 pm
Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:58 pm
"The lamb has been dead since yesterday ..." Do you see any problem with that?
Awkward. Rather, "The lamb died yesterday ..."
Consider:

"The ALUMNUS has just received information that Amos T. Roger... has been dead since December 7, 1913. .... Word has just reached the ALUMNUS that Frank E. Lodeman... has been dead since June 4, 1908." [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=VYUmA ... 22&f=false.]

"There's a wild conspiracy theory on social media that the Queen has been dead since 2016." [Link: https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/11/14/the-queen-is-dead.]

"The real Avril Lavigne has been dead since 2004." [Link: https://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/265587 ... acy-theory.]

"The coroner estimates that the star has been dead since Tuesday." [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=ijgkK ... 22&f=false.]

"Mr. Matthew McGregor has been dead since early spring, but his pay has been going on just the same." [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=QqPzV ... 22&f=false.]

"Feng Chen Zhou... has been dead since 1980, but her body still occupies the master bedroom of the family home." [Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=GPEDA ... 22&f=false.]

One can say "He has been dead since December 5", but it feels awkward to talk that way. Normally, we might say something like "He died on December 5", or "He has been dead since at least December 5."

If we said "I've known that he has been dead since last year", this can mean that I already have known for the last year that the person has been dead.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
Post Reply