The following is a dialogue that I had some years ago about EPI in Rev. 5:9-10. I am now more convinced than ever that "over" is a more than acceptable translation for EPI in that context, and likely to be the right translation.
Greetings H*****,
Sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you on this subject. I'm just offering a few closing remarks, but I'll be glad to allow you the last word, if there are any other observations you want to make. My replies will be indicated by my use of the abbreviation EF below.
H***** wrote:
"We are approaching the end of our discussion, but let me add a few comments to the new points you raise below"
Also, H***** said:
"Let us agree that both 'on' (location) and 'over' (jurisdiction) are possible (based on the grammars and major Greek-English lexica). We can cite dozens of translations, and the majority have chosen 'on'. This does not mean that the majority is necessarily right, but it does indicate that many translators believed this to be a possible and legitimate translation of the text, just like others believed that 'over' was to be preferred.
H***** continues:
The choice between 'on' or 'over' is not in my view based on the grammar or lexicons, but on what the text is not saying. It seems fairly clear from the context that this 'rulership' will take take place on what in Revelation is called 'earth' in contrast to 'heaven' and 'under the earth'. This is a very common contrast in Revelation (5:3,13; 6:13, 9:1, 12:4, 13:13, 14:7, 18:1, 20:11, 21:1). Whether the 'earth' in 5:10 refers to the earth during the 1000 years or the new earth, or both, is not clear. Many things in Revelation are not clear because of the many pictures and metaphors that are open to several interpretations. With the assumption that the ruling takes place on earth, it makes no real difference whether you say 'on' or 'over'. With another assumption, it seems to make a difference."
EF: With all due respect, H*****, none of the passages that you cite above substantiates the view that the "kings and priests" mentioned in Revelation (Rev. 5:9-10; 20:4-6) will rule "on" the earth. The writer of the Apocalypse juxtaposes the "new earth" with the "new heavens" (Rev. 21:1-2). This language has to be explained along with texts like Rev. 22:1-5 which suggests the fulfillment of what many have called the VISIO BEATIFICA or VISIO DEI. As far as appeals to context are concerned, that is fine, but we have to guard against subjective interpretations when we make that move. Finally, the choice for "over" is well established by what we read in the lexica and grammars. Of course, none of this means that we have to go with "over"; however, the preponderance of evidence from the best NT Greek research seems to favor it.
H***** wrote:
"And my point is that one needs to look at what kind of object is used for BASILEUW, if an object at all. This Greek preposition is indeed best rendered "over" when the object of ruling refers to people."
EF: You are the linguist, so I first granted you the benefit of the doubt. I still respect you concerning your field, but I do not believe that the conceptual (i.e., referential) and grammatical distinction that you are making between the preposition "on" being used for an object like the "earth" (i.e., the planet or land) and "over" being employed with reference to "people" will hold up under even the briefest scrutiny. The distinction does not appear to be one rooted in English grammar nor is it consistent with what we encounter in the GNT. For example, one English dictionary gives these examples for the preposition "on":
"In a position to rule or control: The director presides over the meeting.
There is no one over him in the department."
What about the nouns "meeting" and department" in these two examples. What about Matthew 24:47 (NWT): "Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings" (AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI EPI PASIN TOIS hUPARXOUSIN AUTOU KATASTHSEI AUTON). Compare Acts 8:27 (hOS HN EPI PASHS THS GAZHS).
H***** replies:
"meeting and 'ruling over the meeting' is not quite the same. I doubt the second is natural English. The two NT passages listed support my point. To be placed or be in a position "over" someTHING is different from ruling someBODY."
EF: English is relevant because that is what started the whole debate and you have leaned on English semantics to make your case throughout this discussion. Moreover, we're trying to figure out how best to render Rev. 5:10 in English (the receptor language). Why would it not be relevant in this case?
My point with the quote from the American Heritage Dictionary is that in English one can speak of being "over" people. Therefore, the distinction you have made hitherto between being "on" with respect to people and being "over" something non-personal just won't stand. English does allow for us to speak of being "over" someone in the sense of exercising authority or ruling over a person(s).
H***** replies:
This Greek verb occurs 21 times in the NT. In the vast majority of cases (15) there is no explicit object, so the text does not use EPI or anything else to show what is being ruled over. There is one case with a simple genitive:
Mat 2:22 ARCELAOS BASILEUEI THS IOUDAIAS (A. rules Judea)
Then there are four cases where it is clearly a person or group of people who are being ruled over- and in these cases, the translation "over" is appropriate and agreed upon by all (RSV):
Luk 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him and sent an embassy after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.
Luk 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,
Rom 8:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam
Rev 5:10 is different from all of these.
H***** continues:
In one way, it is closest to Mat 2:22 since the area of rulership is here given as "Judea" or "the Judean (land)". But it is still different, because each king is recognized by the territory he rules, so you have a "ruler of Judea",
"ruler of Galilee". One could argue that Rev 5:10 ought to be without EPI if the sense is "ruling the earth".
EF:
The entry for EPI in BDAG (not the old BAGD) is worth reading again. I also need to look up the examples listed by the lexicon. BDAG states that EPI can function as a "marker of power, authority, control of or over someone or someth., over" (see the entry for EPI, 9a). Revelation 5:10; 17:18; 20:6 are included as examples for EPI apparently functioning in this way.
H***** replies:
It is questionable to say that "EPI can function as a *marker* of power, authority or control over". This is importing the sense of a verb into the sense of the preposition. In the case of BASILEUW EPI, it is the verb that carries the sense of ruling, not EPI. EPI may indicate either the jurisdiction of that power or the location where the power is executed. If the object refers to people, then jurisdiction (over) is in view. The old BAGD is better at this point, since it does not talk about a marker.
EF:
I have demonstrated that the conceptual distinction you are making vis-a-vis "on" and "over" is artificial and AD HOC. English grammar does not seem to require that we limit our use of "over" to impersonal entities. That claim does not appear to be correct. Concerning the argument that you make about BDAG's use of the word "marker," I fail to see the probative force of your objection in the light of how linguistics commonly uses that word: "An element that indicates grammatical class or function; a derivational or inflectional morpheme."
H***** replies:
Since there is really no parallel to Rev 5:10, it seems reasonable to me to take the verb as one of those standard cases where no object is explicitly given, but the place of rulership is "the earth".
EF:
What do you think of the examples that we have in 2 Kings 11:3; 2 Chronicles 22:12?
H*****:
1st one: KAI HN MET' AUTHS EN OIKWi KURIOU KRUBOMENOS hEX ETH KAI GOQOLIA BASILEUOUSA EPI THS GHS.
like Jehu ruled EPI ISRAEL in the preceding vers 10:36. In each case, the ruler and his/her subjects live in the same land. Translations vary, e.g. reigned over the land (RSV), ruled the land (NIV), ruled as queen (GNB), ruled the country (GW). Here it would not be appropriate to say "ruled on the land". One could say for Jehu that he "ruled in Israel" and for Athaliah that she "ruled in Judah". It all communicates the same thing. We have had kings and queens in my country for a thousand years. We could say that the king ruled Denmark. We might say that he ruled over Denmark in case we wanted to exclude Norway and Sweden (once ruled by Danish royals). We could also say he ruled in Denmark, but this would be more common if the king ruled both in Denmark and in Norway. We could never say he ruled on Denmark, but we can easily say "they will rule on earth". This has to do with the preposition "in" versus "on" that are used with different types of objects. We can also say "they will rule over the earth". But as soon as we use "world" rather than "earth" it is different. Then we can say "they will rule the world" (NJB does that for Rev 5:10), or "they will rule over the world". The reasons is that "world" often implies the people in the world (like KOSMOS in Greek), whereas "earth" does not normally imply the people living on the earth. (Rolf cited the Seidelin translation in Danish, but may not be fully aware that this translation often does not use normal Danish. Mrs. Seidelin was a poet and writer and she preferred poetic language for ordinary language. Why they chose "over" here I don't know.)
EF: Aside from the disagreement that I have with you on the point about using "over" for people, I concur with how you choose to translate the examples from the LXX and how you understand them from a referential aspect.
As a concluding part of this email, I thought the observations of Carl Conrad on this issue were illuminating. See http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html3/2000-05/0204.html
Regards,
Edgar Foster
No comments:
Post a Comment