Saturday, September 21, 2019

Revelation 1:1 and Signifying

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," (ESV)

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" (KJV)

"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John" (NWT 2013)

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out unto his servants the things which must needs come to pass with speed,—and he shewed them by signs, sending through his messenger, unto his servant John;" (Rotherham EB)

See the NET footnote for Rev. 1:1.

Regarding Rev. 1:1: for σημαίνω, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon has

(1) to make known, report, communicate

(2) to intimate someth[ing] respecting the future, indicate, suggest, intimate

(3) to provide an explanation for someth[ing] that is enigmatic, mean, signify.

Rev. 1:1 is categorized under (1) in this lexicon.

Grant R. Osborne's Remarks Concerning Rev. 1:1b:

The process of revelation is further described with ἐσήμανεν (esēmanen, made it known), the third term in 1:1 (with “revelation” and “show”) with the connotation of “revealing” God’s message. This term has a special purpose, for it is the verb cognate of the Johannine term σημεῖον (sēmeion, sign) and yields the idea of “making known” by means of symbols. This is particularly apropos in light of the predominant symbolism of the book. It is questionable whether Christ (in keeping with the centrality of Christ in 1:1) or God is the subject of “made known” (if ἐσήμανεν parallels δεῖξαι above). While the latter is possible grammatically, Christ is the one who “shows” the revelation to the church and therefore the likely one who “signifies” it to John. The means by which these symbolic truths are to be communicated is “through his angel,” and, as stated above in the introduction, angelic mediation is one of the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. Even a brief perusal of this book proves the extent to which angels feature in the action.
See Osborne, Revelation, Baker Books, 2002 (Ebook published in 2012).

These comments from G.K. Beale equally illuminate Rev. 1:1:
The roots of this verse are in Dan. 2:28-30, 45-47, where in the Greek translations of the OT the verb “revealed” appears five times, the verb “show” (“signify,” “communicate,” Greek sēmainō [only in OG]) twice and the phrase “what must come to pass” three times.


27 comments:

Duncan said...

http://thehumanjesus.org/2017/04/09/shaliah-the-law-of-agency/
Interesting quotes.

Duncan said...

http://www.augsburgfortress.org/media/downloads/9781451465600Chapter1.pdf

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks, Duncan. I found this link for Osborne's work: https://archive.org/details/RevelationBakerExegeticalCommentary/page/n1

In connection with one of the links you posted, I think David Aune's discussion of the angelus interpres in his Revelation commentary is worth reading.

Duncan said...

A good example of Shaliah is Joseph in relation to Pharaoh at Genesis 41:40-44. This can be compared with 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.

Ephesians 1:22, John 3:34

Galatians 3:19 "agency of a mediator"

Acts 2:22 - "Jesus of Nazareth was >>>a man accredited by God<<< to you by miracles, wonders and signs, >>>which God did among you through him<<<, as you yourselves know.”

Duncan said...

Looking through Osborne's work I found an interesting passage on page pg290 regarding the colossus of Rhodes.

Just doing a few basic calculations of possible weight of the statue it would have required a minimum of 408234 mature trees to smelt, not including all other resources required to move and mount it which would also include thousands of trees.

Edgar Foster said...

Yes, Jesus "was" a man used by God, but I don't think he's still human--nor was he always human.

In Gal. 3:19, we find διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου.

"it was put in place through angels by an intermediary." (ESV)

Gerald Borchert talks more about the shaliach/shaliah than most people, but he still thinks Jesus was God incarnate. See

https://books.google.com/books?id=TTy5AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=gerald+borchert+shaliach&source=bl&ots=I2z3zff9MV&sig=ACfU3U0Ym0TpqQgLIOAUTeFh9gj9RDuMFA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVt92qxujkAhWETN8KHYlLCpQQ6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=gerald%20borchert%20shaliach&f=false

Notice Hurtado's remarks on Acts 2:22ff here: https://books.google.com/books?id=vW49IW2F47UC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=larry+hurtado+acts+2:22&source=bl&ots=Vd5DMo_DVh&sig=ACfU3U2SyKh7rD5aFy9HItxp0Gzths8MWQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYsNylx-jkAhUwnOAKHahlAs4Q6AEwBnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=larry%20hurtado%20acts%202%3A22&f=false


Edgar Foster said...

Colossus of Rhodes: https://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-colossus-of-rhodes

Duncan said...

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/galatians-3-19.html

See "in the hand of a mediator;"

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/3-19.htm

Duncan said...

"filled with grace and truth" = filled with logos. Logos becoming flesh.

Duncan said...

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/05-deut-nets.pdf

Deut 18:18 - "I will give my word (rhēma) in his mouth"

Compare LXX of Ezekiel 1:3, Hosea 1:1, Joel 1:1 Johah 1:1, Micah 1:1, Zephaniah 1:1 with Jeremiah 1:1.

Edgar Foster said...

Yes, but we should likely understand ἐν χειρὶ as "by the hand" rather than "in the hand." Zerwick-Grosvenor's Grammatical Analysis of the GNT says the expression is Hebraic for "through the agency of"

So while the law was mediated by Moses, Gal. 3:19 relates that it was also transmitted/ordained through angels. Two actions are in play.

"Filled with logos? Since when does logos = grace and truth? :)

One thing overlooked is that Christ is supposed to be the divine logos in person (preexistence) and in flesh when logos takes on humanity. Jesus says to Jehovah prophetically, you prepared a body for me.

Edgar Foster said...

"Intermediate agency is normally conveyed by διά with the genitive. For example, God delivered the law to Moses by angels (Gal. 3:19) and John sent a message to Christ through his disciples (Matt. 11:2; cf. John 1:3; 3:17)" (Richard A. Young's Grammar, p. 91-92).

Duncan said...

Psalms 199:160 λόγων

Words from the beginning.

John 1:17. The logos came through.

Duncan said...

https://biblehub.com/text/luke/4-22.htm
The words.

Edgar Foster said...

I assume you mean Ps. 119:160, but I get your point.

See both entries in LSJ and BDAG for Logos.

Cf. https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/semantics-of-greek-term-logos.html

Duncan said...

Thinking back on our previous discussions about John you had pointed out to me that pretty much all of the phrasings and usages have parallels in the DSS (Hebrew?).

A reasonable position is that Philo did not even speak Hebrew, so his mix of ideas were like Chinese whispers.

The lxx translation "words" is even debatable in a Hebrew context. Even in plural the Hebrew may understand it as singular.

Not even sure why https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/119-160.htm translates as "of judgments" rather than "of judgment".

My point is that yes we have a lot of different understanding of Logos floating about in the period but why assume something that does not align with the Tanakh?

Duncan said...

Philo Fug. 109 is not so far removed though.

Edgar Foster said...

The plural rendering seems to come from understanding the text as a reference to words/judgments collectively. Compare how Latin Vg handles the verse: Jerome tended to be a careful translator.

Exactly what understanding fails to align with Tanakh?

As for Christianity and Tanakh, there seems to be nothing wrong with transcending Tanakh in some ways. For example, Christians don't offer animal sacrifices nor do they have a physical temple.

Duncan said...

Temple and sacrifice are a poor comparison IMO, as you know my thought on this are quite different to the main stream. The temple and sacrifice served a functional purpose in there time & I have good reasons to think that I am on the right track. Controlling domestic animal populations that could and have become a serious problem in societies, pre and post. Colour it any way we like but the function is fixed.

Duncan said...

Just to be a little more specific, most Christians are not large scale agriculturalist owning significant tracts of land.

Edgar Foster said...

I took you to be saying that something is wrong with assuming ideas/positions that don't align with the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). My answer to what I take you to be saying is that Christians (rightly) practice many things not assumed in Tanakh and that includes having a temple in one location like Jerusalem or offering animal sacrifices. Tanakh assumes both things, regardless of why they sacrificed. I don't see how that point can be successfully gainsaid; however, the GNT assumes neither thing. That was my point. I'm familiar with your approach to these issues, but I was simply addressing the criticism you made above.

Duncan said...

One temple was for one land of a certain size. If Christianity was to expand this model would not work but the controlling of non wild animals should have been maintained. In the future we will either not have these types of animals or a similar system will have to be adopted.

Edgar Foster said...

Well, the GNT suggests that sacrifices and temple and priesthood have now been "spiritualized." I'm thinking of John 4:23-4, Romans 12:1, 1 Pet 2:5 and numerous verses in Hebrews. Hebrews indicates that animal sacrifices are done.

Duncan said...

For reference:-

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n3I8DwAAQBAJ&dq=william+tyndale+johannine

See that Tyndale had a good understanding of logos but could make mistakes:-

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NSyGJkrEo3YC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=william+tyndale+%22logos%22&source=bl&ots=zPiigW3VEa&sig=ACfU3U25FsEsqUexnZ6xCj-rn71Qv5Pv4Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj1JDEsIjlAhUJahQKHSg5DBkQ6AEwD3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=william%20tyndale%20%22logos%22&f=false

However a chapter that is claimed to be so pivotal in understanding the origin and nature of Jesus, I have difficulty thinking this was just a slip up. Especially since he is using "it" and "he" in the prologue. A concious change.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/647334?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/121/Cman_121_3_Werrell.pdf

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/130319/3/6_4_2018_William_Ty.pdf

Edgar Foster said...

I was able to fid Tyndale's comments regarding the Johannine Prologue. They're not long, but could prove to be helpful. I will likely post these to the blog tomorroiw. See page 482: https://books.google.com/books?id=JVoJAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+tyndale+prologue+gospel+of+john&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_r8fb-IflAhWNmOAKHYHkCZAQ6AEIPzAD#v=onepage&q=william%20tyndale%20prologue%20gospel%20of%20john&f=false

Duncan said...

Somewhere amongst this thread I had already posted a link to an image of the original.

Duncan said...

Looks like any comments I took about first Enoch should be taken with a large pinch of salt:-

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/1-enoch-an-update-on-manuscripts-and-cautionary-notes-on-usage/