Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [revelation-list] Rev 14:12 ("pistin Iesou")

Expand Messages
  • Christian Maymann
    Dear Otto Nordgreen The Greek text runs hoi têrountes tas entolas tou theou kai pistin Iesou In 13:10 the referent for pistis most likely is the faith of the
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Otto Nordgreen

      The Greek text runs hoi têrountes tas entolas tou theou kai pistin Iesou


      In 13:10 the referent for pistis most likely is the faith of the holy one.
      I think that we compare 13:10 and 14:12 for several reasons:
      i) They belong together, as part of the "Sign" running from 12:1 to 14:20
      ii) They have two themes in common the pistis and the hypomonê.

      Therefore pistis Iêsou most likely referees to something that describe the
      Christians, not Jesus himself, and therefore Iesou is (as I see it) an
      objective genitive.

      As You know, there have been an For several years debate about exactly that
      problem in the letters of Paul. For some general semantic consideration You
      can read the article "Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians" in Carson et
      al. Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol 2, Mohr Siebeck 2004


      Christian Maymann
      M.Theol.
      Copenhagen

      -----Original Message-----
      From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ottoerlend
      Sent: 11. november 2005 20:07
      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [revelation-list] Rev 14:12 ("pistin Iesou")

      Hello,

      Usually "pistin Iesou" in Rev 14:12 is translated as "faith in Jesus"
      (NET, NAB) or "faith of Jesus" (NRSV) . I guess it's possible to understand
      the genitive as both subjective and objective; I am not able to see that the
      context favours either of them. I have also seen a translation like
      "faithful to Jesus" (cannot remenber where).

      Now, I was wondering if the following translation might be possible /
      likely: "faithfulness of Jesus". ("Faithfulness" does seem to be within the
      semantic realm of "pistis".)

      What do you think? All kinds of comments (context, semantics, syntax,
      etc.) might be useful!


      Best wishes

      Otto E. Nordgreen





      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get
      fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
      http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/D1XolB/TM
      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


      Yahoo! Groups Links






      --
      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 10-11-2005


      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 10-11-2005
    • Bob MacDonald
      George writes: proleptically as having suffered Ken references a suspicion of a link to John 5:24 George - thanks for the note. I think your explanation is not
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        George writes: proleptically as having suffered
        Ken references a suspicion of a link to John 5:24

        George - thanks for the note. I think your explanation is
        not far off from supporting my thesis that the implied first
        death in Rev is like Paul's image of baptism in Romans, a
        real identification with the suffering and death of the
        firstborn and an overcoming through this death. Thank you
        for the interpretation of the 1000 years - nice work and
        good idea - one day in thy courts is better than a thousand
        also comes to mind as an indication of the notion of
        'eternal' - a subject that has been debated at least since
        Aquinas

        Ken - re John 5:24-29; these verses are part of a double
        chiasm with the centre of each focussing on opposites -
        believing and non believing. Given the complex concentric
        structures in Revelation, it is possible that the same poet
        wrote both - but hardly necessary. (For the double chiasm
        see http://bmd.gx.ca/synoptic/tuej_only_viii.htm#141

        I have no axe to grind on this - but sometimes I wonder if
        the reputed young man in the rich young man story (only in
        Mark) might not have been the poet of G John (but not John
        of Patmos) - too many inferences to resolve...

        Bob

        Bob MacDonald
        http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
        Victoria, B.C., Canada

        Catch the foxes for us,
        the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
        for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
      • KennethGentry@cs.com
        In a message dated 11/12/2005 8:39:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Bob: I do not used the seeming relationship between Rev 20 and John 5 as evidence for
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/12/2005 8:39:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
          bobmacdonald@... writes:


          > Ken - re John 5:24-29; these verses are part of a double
          > chiasm with the centre of each focussing on opposites -
          > believing and non believing. Given the complex concentric
          > structures in Revelation, it is possible that the same poet
          > wrote both - but hardly necessary.

          Bob:

          I do not used the seeming relationship between Rev 20 and John 5 as evidence
          for Johannine authorship of Rev. 20. I already have in mind (from other
          evidence) that John is the author of both the Gospel and the Revelation. Having that
          in mind, I see a double resurrection in John 5 and suppose that since (on
          other grounds) John wrote Rev 20, that he would be picking up on his already
          established two resurrection motif.

          I see Rev 11:2 as reflecting Luke 21:24 also. But I (obviously) wouldn't say
          this is evidence Luke wrote Revelation.

          I am afraid I may have made you think I was using the Rev 20 / John 5
          similarity as evidence of authorship. That was a mistaken impression that I didn't
          intend.

          Thanks,

          Ken

          Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., M.Div, Th.M., Th.D
          www.KennethGentry.com
          "Serious Studies for Serious Christians"

          Chancellor and Research Professor in Theology
          Christ College, Lynchburg, Virginia
          www.Christ-College.edu


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.