Dear b-greekers, In the following pairs of verses a designation used for Jesus in Rev 1 is reused in chapters 2, 3 with occasional minor variations. Pair 1 2:1) hO KRATWN TOUS hEPTA ASTERAS EN THi DEXIAi AUTOU 1:16) ECWN EN THi DEXIAi CEIRI AUTOU ASTERAS hEPTA Pair 2 2:1) hO PERIPATWN EN MESWi TWN hEPTA LUCNIWN TWN CRUSWN 1:12,13) [EIDON] hEPTA LUCNIAS CRUSAS KAI EN MESWi TWN LUCNIWN [hOMOION hUION ANQRWPOU] Pair 3 2:8) hO PRWTOS KAI hO ESCATOS 1:17) hO PRWTOS KAI hO ESCATOS Pair 4 2:8) hOS EGENETO NEKROS KAI EZHSEN 1:18) EGENOMHN NEKROS KAI IDOU ZWN EIMI Pair 5 2:12) hO ECWN THN hROMFAIAN THN DISTOMON THN OXEIAN 1:16) EK TOU STOMATOS AUTOU hROMFAIA DISTOMOS OXEIA Pair 6 2:18) hO ECWN TOUS OFQALMOUS AUTOU hWS FLOGA PUROS KAI hOI PODES AUTOU hOMOIOI CALKOLIBANWi 1:14,15) hOI OFQALMOI AUTOU hWS FLOX PUROS KAI hOI PODES AUTOU hOMOIOI CALKOLIBANWi Pair 7 3:1) hO ECWN TA hEPTA PNEUMATA TOU QEOU KAI TOUS hEPTA ASTERAS 1:4,16) 4 - APO TWN hEPTA PNEUMATWN hA ENWPION TOU QRONOU AUTOU 16 - ECWN EN THi DEXIAi CEIRI AUTOU ASTERAS hEPTA Pair 8 3:14) hO MARTUS 1:5) hO MARTUS Pair 9 3:14) hO PISTOS 1:5) hO PISTOS I think all will agree with me that these pairs of vss are parallels. They have the same meaning in chps 2, 3 as they do in chp 1 with occasional minor differences in wording. For example, in Pair 1 KRATWN is used in chp 2 instead of ECWN in chp 1. In the Pair 2 Jesus is pictured as PERIPATWN in chp 2 while this word is absent from the parallel in chp 1. (Perhaps Jesus stopped moving while He was talking to John in the vision of chp 1.) Differences in person and tense in the Pair 4 do not disrupt the parallel. In Pair 5 the parallel to TOU STOMATOS in 1:16 is to be found in 2:16. The question I pose now is: Are any new designations for Jesus introduced in 2, 3 which are not to be found in 1? My answer to this question is "no" with possibly one or two exceptions. I have mentioned above 9 designations for Jesus in chps 2, 3. In fact, there are 5 or possibly 6 more such designations in those chapters. hO ALHQINOS in 3:7 is not in chp 1. But hO ALHQINOS is not a separate and distinct designation for Jesus. It is combined with PISTOS in 3:14 to form one composite designtion, hO PISTOS KAI ALHQINOS by the figure of hendiadys. Wherever the one is found (1:5; 3:7) the other is implied. No one can be PISTOS without also being ALHQINOS and vice versa. Jesus is "the truly faithful one." Therefore, hO ALHQINOS is not a new title in 3:7 unmentioned in chp 1, because it is implied in PISTOS. This leaves 5 more designations in chps 2, 3. Pair 10 2:18) hO hUIOS TOU QEOU 1:13) hOMOION hUION ANQRWPOU Is hO hUIOS TOU QEOU equivalent in meaning to hOMOION hUION ANQRWPOU? Listen to what R. H. Charles says in his commentary on Rev, vol 1, p. 27: << The Being whom the Seer sees is not "like the Son of Man," but is "the Son of Man." But the Seer can rightly describe Him as being "like a son of man." This technical phraseology in Apolcalyptic means that the Being so described is *not a man.* [empahsis mine here] Further, since Ezekiel, and particularly 1 Enoch xxxvii.-lxxi. (also lxxxiii.-xc.), used the term "man" in their *visions* to symbolize an angel, hUIOS ANQRWPOU would most naturally bear the same meaning in this passage. Thus hOMOION hUION ANQRWPOU would = "like an angel." Hence the Being so described is a supernatural Being, *like* an angel and yet *not an angel.* [emphasis mine here] Such is the literal rendering of this latter passage. >> If hUIOS ANQRWPOU is a supernatural being who is not a man and not an angel, guess Who that leaves! :-) So it appears that hOMOION hUION ANQRWPOU is strictly parallel to hO hUIOS TOU QEOU and therefore the latter designation is not new in chps 2, 3. Pair 11? 3:7) hO hAGIOS This designation is not mentioned as such in chp 1 but is strongly implied in the following vision of Jesus and John's reaction to it: hH DE KEFALH AUTOU KAI hAI TRICES LEUKAI hWS ERION LEUKON hWS CIWN KAI hOI OFQALMOI AUTOU hWS FLOX PUROS KAI hOI PODES AUTOU hOMOIOI CALKOLIBANWi hWS EN KAMINWi PEPURWMENHS... KAI hH OYIS AUTOU hWS hO hHLIOS FAINEI EN THi DUNAMEI AUTOU. KAI hOTE EIDON AUTON, EPESA PROS TOUS PODAS AUTOU hWS NEKROS... 1:14,15,16,17 The holiness of Jesus is clearly seen in this description. This interpretation is confirmed by John's reaction, i.e., falling at His feet. This is the standard reaction of Biblical characters when confronted by the overwhelming holiness of God. Therefore, hO hAGIOS is not a new title in chps 2, 3. Pair 12 3:7) hO ECWN THN KLEIN DAUID, K.T.L. cf Is 22:22 1:18) ECW TAS KLEIS TOU QANATOU KAI TOU hAiDOU Although these two designations are probably not strictly equivalent (but cf Mt 16:18,19 where the PULAI hAiDOU are powerless against TAS KLEIDAS THS BASILEIAS TWN OURANWN given to the church and the OT allusion is also to Is 22:22, THN KLEIDA OIKOU DAUID), note that they differ only in the qualifying genitives while the head nouns are nearly the same. In both vss Jesus holds the key(s) symbolizing authoritative rule and control. Therefore, Jesus as holder of the key(s) is not a new designation in chp 3 but may be found in chp 1. Pair 13? 3:14) hO AMHN This is possibly the only truly new designation. Yet the word AMHN does occur twice in chp 1 but not as designations for Jesus. The two places where it occurs are very significant. The doxology which rounds off John's salutation to the churches from the Father, the Spirit and Jesus concludes with AMHN. (1:4-6) The focus in the doxology is on the saving work of Jesus and its results. By concluding with AMHN the author is saying, "Yes Jesus, you are Savior and Your work has been effective." The author, in verse 7, appends the words NAI, AMHN to a pastiche of quotes from the OT. These picture the Lord coming with the clouds to rule the nations who are in dismay at the sight of Him. So the NAI, AMHN means "Yes Jesus, you are Lord of the nations. Come and rule over them." So AMHN affirms Jesus as Savior and coming Lord. This is precisely what He needs to be to the Laodicean church. First He shows them their spiritual need and then offers them His healing. Then He reminds them of His Lordship (vss 19,21) and promises to come (EISELEUSOMAI) to them in fellowship (vs 20). So I conclude that the meaning symbolized by hO AMHN is to be found already in 1:6,7 as well as the word itself. And finally the pair: Pair 14 3:14) hH ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU 1:5) hO ARCWN TWN BASILEWN THS GHS Is this designation in 3:14 the only one without a parallel/equivalent in chp 1? Even an implied one? Chapter 1 does not contain the least hint of anything remotely connected to creation. Neither ARCH (meaning "beginning") nor anything like it is to found in chp 1. This is rather odd in the first chapter of a book containing so many Johannine elements. cf Jn 1:1,2; 1Jn 1:1; 2Jn 1:5,6 And finally how is hH ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU meaning "the beginning of God's creation related to anything in the letter to the Laodiceans? I contend that these questions/observations are unanswerable unless we view hH ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU and hO ARCWN TWN BASILEWN THS GHS as roughly parallel/equivalent. Note that the structure of this pair is similar to the structure of Pair 12, THN KLEIN DAUID. But the qualifying genitives in this pair are much closer in meaning than those of Pair 12. It may, in fact, be the case that KTISIS is being used in a narrower sense here as it sometimes is elsewhere in the NT. (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Mk 16:15; Col 1:23; 1Pet 2:13) The last reference is especially significant because it shows that KTISIS can mean human governmental institutions. True, in 1Pet 2:13 KTISIS is limited by ANQRWPINH but THS KTISEWS in 3:14 is limited by its parallel TWN BASILEWN in 1:5. But even if this limited sense of KTISEWS is not accepted, TWN BASILEWN THS GHS is still a subset of THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU and thus, they are, in part, parallel. Given the fact that in 9 (possibly 10 or 11) of the 14 couplets the two members show only minor verbal variations (no major semantic differences in the head nouns for Pairs 10 and 12) and given the fact that no new designations for Jesus are introduced in chps 2, 3 which are not at least implied in chp 1 and given the fact that the context (Jesus exercising His Lordship in 3:19,21) favors hH ARCH = "the ruler" I conclude that hH ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU and hO ARCWN TWN BASILEWN THS GHS are roughly parallel/equivalent. The difference between hH ARCH and hO ARCWN should be viewed as a minor verbal variation with no major semantic distinction. In conclusion, it should also be noted that the original hand of ALEPH wrote EKKLHSIAS for KTISEWS. KTISEWS is, of couse, the indisputably correct reading. But in order for the scribe of ALEPH to copy EKKLHSIAS from his exemplar and read it sensibly in his text he had to have understood hH ARCH to mean either "beginner" or "ruler" of the church. Jesus as "the beginning of the church" is absurd. Jesus was not the first member of the church. He is not a member of the church at all. So that portion of the church of the 4th century that read from ALEPH and all the mss copied from it understood hH ARCH to mean either "the beginner" or "the ruler" not "the beginning." I suspect many others did as well. Since Greek was their living native tongue, who are we to insist that hH ARCH meant "the beginning" when they did not so understand it. Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh@juno.com New Haven, CT USA Nibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith, silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu