Carrier and Couchoud about Revelation 13:8

[Stefan Kristensen]

From my knowledge of Greek I would say that grammatically the most natural understanding of the text is Carrier's, that the meaning is: "the book of life of the lamb that was slain", and their "names have not been written" in this book "from the foundation of the world", unlike the righteous saints.

I disagree with this. On a strictly grammatical/syntactical level, it is more natural to take the prepositional phrase with the verb or participle which immediately precedes it.

Yes, I suppose that might be a sort of very basic or general grammatical rule, but when considering the grammar/syntax of a sentence the meaning of the words themselves are surely also to be taken into account. I mean, for example, if it is the verb "sleep" which immediately precedes the prepositional phrase "through the window", then it is hardly an applicable rule. "He saw the man that was sleeping through the window": ειδον τον ανθρωπον τον καθευδοντα δια θυριδος. I don't believe this is an awkward or unnatural Greek syntax (in English, though). Here, taking the prepositional phrase with the more distanced verb is the natural thing, grammatically.

So what is grammatically natural in this instance of Rev 13:8 is also determined by semantics. And as I see it, the very meaning of the word "slaughter" (σφαζω) makes it grammatically unnatural to connect this particular prepositional phrase with it, and instead quite natural to take the prepositional phrase with the verb "written" instead, like in Rev 17:8. Granted, the phrase "απο παραβολης κοσμου" is also a bit special in itself, but I don't see anything unnatural or awkward at all in taking "του εσφαγμενου" as nothing more than an apposition. Consider the "slaughtered" lamb in Rev 5:6, 9 and 12 as well as the fact that this author seems to really like the perfect passive participle of this verb in general (6 out of 8 occurences). That there is a participle here, between "γεγραπται" and the απο-phrase, need not seperate or distance the two at all, as far as I know.

And I think that if the idea is that the lamb was slaughtered at/before the foundation of the world, the απο-phrase is not a natural way of choosing to say this. Poetic, perhaps, but not natural. "...the lamb that has been slaughtered since the foundation of the world"? What does that mean? Isn't it like saying, 'this pig has been slaughtered since last thursday' when you really mean 'this pig was slaughtered last thursday'? But of course, I have to admit that if "slaughter" in this specific context means "executed in mid-air on a floating cross by demons" or something like that, then I really don't know what anything means.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Rev 5:6, YLT: "and I saw, and lo, in the midst of the throne, and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb hath stood as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the Seven Spirits of God, which are sent to all the earth,"

Ben wrote: Even if the lamb is seen as raised from the dead, the author may think of him as still "slain" in some sense, so that the sacrifice still applies."

The perfect tense is a primary tense because it emphasizes the present, or ongoing result of a completed action. (www.ntgreek.net/lesson23.htm)

Therefore "slain" indicates a past action which has been completed, but with lasting consequences to the present.

I still do not see how the lamb could have been slain from/since the foundation of the world (indicating a very long time for him to be killed (but nevertheless found alive in Revelation) with that perfect tense, even with passive voice and participle mood. Another tense would be expected with "from/since".

In Rev 17:8, we have ... whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, ..."
From the foundation of the world, it is about the names not written in the book of life. Nothing to do with the lamb, or the lamb who was slayed.

However, in Rev 21:27, the lamb, with no mention of him having been slayed, is associated with the book of life: "... but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life ..."
It does not look that "from the foundation of the world" is when the lamb was slayed but when names were written (or not) in the book of life of the Lamb.

Cordially, Bernard

[archibald]

Supposing, for a moment, we were to at least temporarily accept that the line was intended to mean that the lamb was slain at the foundation of the world........

To me, the content of this book arguably belongs, possibly along with its writer, in the tin labelled 'fruitcake'. Or to put it another way, actual history seems to almost be the last thing on his mind. So, if he conceived of Jesus, in the first instance, as having existed since the foundation of the world, then it might be a small, non-historical (ie theological) step to think of him as pre- or always slain (in the past, present and future).

That said, I am a bit surprised that Carrier doesn't want to utilise this reference, especially as in a nearby verse it says the lamb was slain in what was spiritually, Sodom and Egypt. Carrier seems to take this as a reference to Jerusalem, because of a preceding reference to the temple, though as far as I am aware, he is not averse to the idea that 'the temple' is not necessarily considered earthly. Carrier also seems to read it that it was the book that was slain. Do books get slain? He also uses an inappropriate apostrophe in his opening line when he says, "Hm. I don’t think Revelation deep time’s the crucifixion", but that's just me being pedantic and unkind.

All in all, I would have thought there was material here that he might have warmed to, in support of his case.

Personally, I might think it a tad inconsistent for someone, someone in general I mean, to slag off most of the NT as made-up fiction and then pounce gleefully on a lonely reference by a fruitcake with an overly-vivid imagination, but if I were a mythicist, I'd be citing this passage, albeit acknowledging its possible ambiguity.

[Ben C. Smith]

From my knowledge of Greek I would say that grammatically the most natural understanding of the text is Carrier's, that the meaning is: "the book of life of the lamb that was slain", and their "names have not been written" in this book "from the foundation of the world", unlike the righteous saints.

I disagree with this. On a strictly grammatical/syntactical level, it is more natural to take the prepositional phrase with the verb or participle which immediately precedes it.

Yes, I suppose that might be a sort of very basic or general grammatical rule, but when considering the grammar/syntax of a sentence the meaning of the words themselves are surely also to be taken into account. I mean, for example, if it is the verb "sleep" which immediately precedes the prepositional phrase "through the window", then it is hardly an applicable rule. "He saw the man that was sleeping through the window": ειδον τον ανθρωπον τον καθευδοντα δια θυριδος. I don't believe this is an awkward or unnatural Greek syntax (in English, though). Here, taking the prepositional phrase with the more distanced verb is the natural thing, grammatically.

So what is grammatically natural in this instance of Rev 13:8 is also determined by semantics. And as I see it, the very meaning of the word "slaughter" (σφαζω) makes it grammatically unnatural to connect this particular prepositional phrase with it, and instead quite natural to take the prepositional phrase with the verb "written" instead, like in Rev 17:8. Granted, the phrase "απο παραβολης κοσμου" is also a bit special in itself, but I don't see anything unnatural or awkward at all in taking "του εσφαγμενου" as nothing more than an apposition. Consider the "slaughtered" lamb in Rev 5:6, 9 and 12 as well as the fact that this author seems to really like the perfect passive participle of this verb in general (6 out of 8 occurences). That there is a participle here, between "γεγραπται" and the απο-phrase, need not seperate or distance the two at all, as far as I know.

And I think that if the idea is that the lamb was slaughtered at/before the foundation of the world, the απο-phrase is not a natural way of choosing to say this. Poetic, perhaps, but not natural. "...the lamb that has been slaughtered since the foundation of the world"? What does that mean? Isn't it like saying, 'this pig has been slaughtered since last thursday' when you really mean 'this pig was slaughtered last thursday'? But of course, I have to admit that if "slaughter" in this specific context means "executed in mid-air on a floating cross by demons" or something like that, then I really don't know what anything means.

The word "slain" in the perfect tense implies a present state of (still) being slain. It is like someone having died last Thursday and being, therefore, still dead today. The LXX verse from Leviticus that I offered is a case in point; it uses the same Greek participle (in the perfect tense and passive voice, as well) to indicate that the bird is dead at this stage of the ritual: "the slain bird." The preposition ἀπό is perfectly natural in such a context, as shown by the verse from Matthew that I offered.

You are completely correct that the sense of the sentence can dictate where we attach the prepositional phrase. You gave an example of a semantically impossible connection between the phrase "through the window" and the immediately preceding "sleeping" participle. Perfectly fair. But we do not have such an impossible situation in Revelation 13.8... unless we have already decided in advance that it is impossible for the lamb to have been slain so early. I really do not blame anyone for making this assumption; as I said, this is a standalone verse in that respect. But my point is that this decision has nothing to do with grammar or syntax: or even semantics, since in a vision there are no semantic barriers to the timing of a lamb's slaughter, any more than there are semantic barriers to a creature having six wings and eyes all over its body in such a context. Grammatically and syntactically, this verse could very easily be taken to mean that the lamb has been slain since the foundation of the world. There are no grammatical or syntactical obstacles to this view.

I think it is a mistake to compare the Greek here to the English word "slaughtered" (both as a past tense verb and as a participle). The Greek perfect tense operates a bit differently than the English. In English we would hardly use "have stood" to mean "are standing" — but in Greek that is perfectly normal.

As for an execution in midair on a floating cross by demons, I have never subscribed to any such view. My frame of reference for the lamb having been slain since the beginning of time would be completely different.

to Ben,

Rev 5:6, YLT: "and I saw, and lo, in the midst of the throne, and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb hath stood as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the Seven Spirits of God, which are sent to all the earth,"

Ben wrote: Even if the lamb is seen as raised from the dead, the author may think of him as still "slain" in some sense, so that the sacrifice still applies."

The perfect tense is a primary tense because it emphasizes the present, or ongoing result of a completed action. (www.ntgreek.net/lesson23.htm)

Therefore "slain" indicates a past action which has been completed, but with lasting consequences to the present.

I still do not see how the lamb could have been slain from/since the foundation of the world (indicating a very long time for him to be killed (but nevertheless found alive in Revelation) with that perfect tense, even with passive voice and participle mood. Another tense would be expected with "from/since".

It is exactly the same tense, the perfect, in Matthew 13.35: "things hidden from [ἀπὸ] the foundation of the world." Somebody hid them (at the foundation), and they are still hidden (ever since the foundation). In Revelation 13.8, somebody slew the lamb, and he is still slain (at least in some sense). There is nothing unnatural or forced here.

In Rev 17:8, we have ... whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, ..."
From the foundation of the world, it is about the names not written in the book of life. Nothing to do with the lamb, or the lamb who was slayed.

However, in Rev 21:27, the lamb, with no mention of him having been slayed, is associated with the book of life: "... but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life ..."
It does not look that "from the foundation of the world" is when the lamb was slayed but when names were written (or not) in the book of life of the Lamb.

I agree that those are excellent points. I am commenting on the grammar of 13.8, and I stand by what I have said so far: the grammar itself allows for the lamb to have been slain from the foundation of the world. In fact, that is the most natural way to read the sentence. I have already stipulated that it is possible to connect the prepositional phrase differently. What I am trying to avoid is bias in how the grammar and syntax are presented. I think it would be misleading to say that the most natural way to read the sentence is the traditional way; I think we should admit that the sentence really can be read the way Couchoud reads it, regardless how unlikely we think that reading may be on other grounds.

[Charles Wilson]

Revelation 5: 6 (RSV, in part):

[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...

While we're contemplating awkward phrases, I ask again, "How does a lamb STAND as though it had been slain?".

There is something else going on here and it isn't helped by looking at the Greek - or at a "Jesus" for that matter. Mebbe one should look to see if there might be a marker in History here, some Historic Feature of something that happened in Judea, given as a Word Play.

" אמּר ", f'rinstance. "Immar"/"Immer". "Lamb"/"The sixteenth Mishmarot Service Group". Immer is given the Settlement of "Jabnit" for its Priests. Jabnit is near Meiron, given to Jehoiarib (The Hasmoneans). Immer believes that the Hasmoneans came from them. Of the House of Eleazar, Jehoiarib was the "Alpha", "Immer" was the "Omega". Jannaeus was the King. The Group Immer was to lead the Coup against Herod but Herod died a week or so too soon allowing for the Counter-Revolution. 3000+ slain at the Temple.

John 1: (RSV):

[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

John is of Bilgah. "Jesus" is from Immer.
It's all very consistent.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

It is exactly the same tense, the perfect, in Matthew 13.35: "things hidden from [ἀπὸ] the foundation of the world." Somebody hid them (at the foundation), and they are still hidden (ever since the foundation). In Revelation 13.8, somebody slew the lamb, and he is still slain (at least in some sense). There is nothing unnatural or forced here.

The difference is that in Mt13:35, things are still hidden, but in Rev 5:6 the lamb is alive and not slain.
And in what sense the lamb is still slain? Could anybody be slain or dead in God's heaven?

In Rev 14:4, we have a hundred and forty and four thousands of Jews following the lamb wherever he goes: "These are they which follow the Lamb wherever he goes"
These ones are found in heaven, where the lamb is (allegedly), at Rev 14:3-4.
But before these same Jews were on earth at Rev 7:4.
We are talking about the same generation of Jews.
That would indicate also the one they follow was one earth not too long ago and then (presumably after being slain) went to heaven alive again.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

It is exactly the same tense, the perfect, in Matthew 13.35: "things hidden from [ἀπὸ] the foundation of the world." Somebody hid them (at the foundation), and they are still hidden (ever since the foundation). In Revelation 13.8, somebody slew the lamb, and he is still slain (at least in some sense). There is nothing unnatural or forced here.

The difference is that in Mt13:35, things are still hidden, but in Rev 5:6 the lamb is alive and not slain.
And in what sense the lamb is still slain? Could anybody be slain or dead in God's heaven?

I am not sure. I am only reading Revelation 5.6 and 13.8 and wondering out loud. The tense is perfect in 13.8, no matter whose view we espouse. So what does it mean for the lamb to be slain in 13.8, regardless of how long?

In Rev 14:4, we have a hundred and forty and four thousands of Jews following the lamb wherever he goes: "These are they which follow the Lamb wherever he goes"
These ones are found in heaven, where the lamb is (allegedly), at Rev 14:3-4.
But before these same Jews were on earth at Rev 7:4.
We are talking about the same generation of Jews.
That would indicate also the one they follow was one earth not too long ago and then (presumably after being slain) went to heaven alive again.

Nor, to be frank, am I sure about your interpretation here (or about anybody else's) of the 144,000. You may be 100% right. But I am not sure yet.

[Giuseppe]

Supposing, for a moment, we were to at least temporarily accept that the line was intended to mean that the lamb was slain at the foundation of the world........

To me, the content of this book arguably belongs, possibly along with its writer, in the tin labelled 'fruitcake'. Or to put it another way, actual history seems to almost be the last thing on his mind. So, if he conceived of Jesus, in the first instance, as having existed since the foundation of the world, then it might be a small, non-historical (ie theological) step to think of him as pre- or always slain (in the past, present and future).

That said, I am a bit surprised that Carrier doesn't want to utilise this reference, especially as in a nearby verse it says the lamb was slain in what was spiritually, Sodom and Egypt. Carrier seems to take this as a reference to Jerusalem, because of a preceding reference to the temple, though as far as I am aware, he is not averse to the idea that 'the temple' is not necessarily considered earthly. Carrier also seems to read it that it was the book that was slain. Do books get slain? He also uses an inappropriate apostrophe in his opening line when he says, "Hm. I don’t think Revelation deep time’s the crucifixion", but that's just me being pedantic and unkind.

All in all, I would have thought there was material here that he might have warmed to, in support of his case.

Personally, I might think it a tad inconsistent for someone, someone in general I mean, to slag off most of the NT as made-up fiction and then pounce gleefully on a lonely reference by a fruitcake with an overly-vivid imagination, but if I were a mythicist, I'd be citing this passage, albeit acknowledging its possible ambiguity.

Carrier says clearly that Revelation is of no importance since his author is not who he says to be. The same reason why the Gospel of John is of no importance in the case. He follows the consensus when says that Revelation was written by the followers not of the Pillars, to preserve the Christian dogma that wants the Pillars sincere friends of Paul the Apostle (but so he can say that the Pillars christology is high as the pauline christology).

Note that the christology of Rev is high.

At any case, if the mythicist Couchoud has given his evidence to consider Jesus as ancestral, which are the reason given by the historicists to consider Jesus as recently and earthly lived? I mean, do we have an extra-gospel passage where it is said explicitly that Jesus is crucified recently on the earth? No.

I want say: in a case like this, even the more thin clue should do the difference...

[Stefan Kristensen]

From my knowledge of Greek I would say that grammatically the most natural understanding of the text is Carrier's, that the meaning is: "the book of life of the lamb that was slain", and their "names have not been written" in this book "from the foundation of the world", unlike the righteous saints.

I disagree with this. On a strictly grammatical/syntactical level, it is more natural to take the prepositional phrase with the verb or participle which immediately precedes it.

Yes, I suppose that might be a sort of very basic or general grammatical rule, but when considering the grammar/syntax of a sentence the meaning of the words themselves are surely also to be taken into account. I mean, for example, if it is the verb "sleep" which immediately precedes the prepositional phrase "through the window", then it is hardly an applicable rule. "He saw the man that was sleeping through the window": ειδον τον ανθρωπον τον καθευδοντα δια θυριδος. I don't believe this is an awkward or unnatural Greek syntax (in English, though). Here, taking the prepositional phrase with the more distanced verb is the natural thing, grammatically.

So what is grammatically natural in this instance of Rev 13:8 is also determined by semantics. And as I see it, the very meaning of the word "slaughter" (σφαζω) makes it grammatically unnatural to connect this particular prepositional phrase with it, and instead quite natural to take the prepositional phrase with the verb "written" instead, like in Rev 17:8. Granted, the phrase "απο παραβολης κοσμου" is also a bit special in itself, but I don't see anything unnatural or awkward at all in taking "του εσφαγμενου" as nothing more than an apposition. Consider the "slaughtered" lamb in Rev 5:6, 9 and 12 as well as the fact that this author seems to really like the perfect passive participle of this verb in general (6 out of 8 occurences). That there is a participle here, between "γεγραπται" and the απο-phrase, need not seperate or distance the two at all, as far as I know.

And I think that if the idea is that the lamb was slaughtered at/before the foundation of the world, the απο-phrase is not a natural way of choosing to say this. Poetic, perhaps, but not natural. "...the lamb that has been slaughtered since the foundation of the world"? What does that mean? Isn't it like saying, 'this pig has been slaughtered since last thursday' when you really mean 'this pig was slaughtered last thursday'? But of course, I have to admit that if "slaughter" in this specific context means "executed in mid-air on a floating cross by demons" or something like that, then I really don't know what anything means.

The word "slain" in the perfect tense implies a present state of (still) being slain. It is like someone having died last Thursday and being, therefore, still dead today. The LXX verse from Leviticus that I offered is a case in point; it uses the same Greek participle (in the perfect tense and passive mood, as well) to indicate that the bird is dead at this stage of the ritual: "the slain bird." The preposition ἀπό is perfectly natural in such a context, as shown by the verse from Matthew that I offered.

You are completely correct that the sense of the sentence can dictate where we attach the prepositional phrase. You gave an example of a semantically impossible connection between the phrase "through the window" and the immediately preceding "sleeping" participle. Perfectly fair. But we do not have such an impossible situation in Revelation 13.8... unless we have already decided in advance that it is impossible for the lamb to have been slain so early. I really do not blame anyone for making this assumption; as I said, this is a standalone verse in that respect. But my point is that this decision has nothing to do with grammar or syntax: or even semantics, since in a vision there are no semantic barriers to the timing of a lamb's slaughter, any more than there are semantic barriers to a creature having six wings and eyes all over its body in such a context. Grammatically and syntactically, this verse could very easily be taken to mean that the lamb has been slain since the foundation of the world. There are no grammatical or syntactical obstacles to this view.

I think it is a mistake to compare the Greek here to the English word "slaughtered" (both as a past tense verb and as a participle). The Greek perfect tense operates a bit differently than the English. In English we would hardly use "have stood" to mean "are standing" — but in Greek that is perfectly normal.

I 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". None of the occurrences of this verb, "slay" (σφαζω), in the NT or LXX is used in such a construction: "slain since". I'm not talking about the weird notion of God's lamb being slain before time, I know anything is possible in these texts, I'm just talking about this particular construction, "slain since". To me, this construction would only make sense, if it was a normal thing for this status to change. It's not like saying someone 'has been standing there since noon', or someone 'has been dead since last thursday', it's like saying someone 'has been killed since last thursday'. Yes, he has been killed and he is still killed. Well, of course, that isn't gonna change! I think that the verb "slay" in a passive like this, like the verb "kill", simply isn't natural in a construction with "since", unless it's some poetic form, or maybe it's just me.

And it is true that the perfect tense is not exactly the same in all languages, but your example of "standing" is not very good, because it is a special case. I don't think the perfect tense in koine Greek makes it natural to use "slay" with "since".

All the other occurrences of the phrase "απο καταβολης κοσμου" are constructions with verbs where the construction with "since" is quite natural, perhaps with the exception of Heb 4:3, but here the verb (γινομαι) is also found in a poetic context with the meaning of predetermination: God's works unfold now, but they already came to be at the creation.

Matt 13,35: "has been hidden since the foundation of the world"
Matt 25,34: "has been prepared since the foundation of the world"
Luke 11,50: "the blood that has been shed since the foundation of the world"
Heb 4,3: "although God's deeds have been made since the foundation of the world"
Heb 9,26: "have had to suffer many times since the foundation of the world"
Rev 13,8: "has been slain since the foundation of the world"
Rev 17,8: "has been written in the book since the foundation of the world"

As for an execution in midair on a floating cross by demons, I have never subscribed to any such view. My frame of reference for the lamb having been slain since the beginning of time would be completely different.

I know! But isn't that the view of Carrier and others?

[archibald]

At any case, if the mythicist Couchoud has given his evidence to consider Jesus as ancestral, which are the reason given by the historicists to consider Jesus as recently and earthly lived? I mean, do we have an extra-gospel passage where it is said explicitly that Jesus is crucified recently on the earth? No

Imo, Jesus is described, in the epistles, as having been on earth and as having been crucified on earth.

As to when, recently just makes the more sense, imo. Otherwise he'd have arrived and then died 'for our sins', at the right time while we were without strength (Romans 5 v6) and we were sinners, and his death supposedly heralded a new covenant and so on, there'd be an odd gap to explain. Recently seems to be more parsimonious and is implied, imo.

Plus, there's the reference to his rising 3 days after being killed and being seen by people described as alive at the time of writing.