Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Alan Patterson
Posts: 158
Joined: September 3rd, 2011, 7:21 pm
Location: Emory University

Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by Alan Patterson »

ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου εξακοσιοι εξηκοντα εξ

What is the antecedent to αυτου?

Based on all translations, it is θηριου instead of ανθρωπου. What grammatical principle is at play that has this pronoun's antecedent bypass ανθρωπου?

Is the following translation even an option: It is the number of man and his number is 666. So, the number of man is 666 as is the number of the beast.
χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη,
Alan Patterson
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3352
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Alan Patterson wrote:ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου εξακοσιοι εξηκοντα εξ

What is the antecedent to αυτου?

Based on all translations, it is θηριου instead of ανθρωπου.
What translations have you consulted? They are not consistent. Although the NRSV and RSV have "its number" (i.e. an antecedent of θηρίου), the NASB, NIV, NAB, NET, NJB, ESV, and KJV* all have "his number" (i.e, ἀνθρώπου).

(*NB: the pronoun "its" was then a relatively recent development in the English language for the KJV translators and the word its only occurs in the KJV at Lev 25:5. So the KJV "his" may not be relevant.)
Alan Patterson wrote:What grammatical principle is at play that has this pronoun's antecedent bypass ανθρωπου?
Aside from agreement rules, it's not really grammar but topicality (pragmatics) that governs the identification of antecedents. And the two translations (of the ones I listed) that go with "its" seem to think that the number of the beast is the topic.
Alan Patterson wrote:Is the following translation even an option: It is the number of man and his number is 666. So, the number of man is 666 as is the number of the beast.
I can't figure out why this translation takes ἀνθρώπου as a generic "man" (no article).
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Alan Patterson
Posts: 158
Joined: September 3rd, 2011, 7:21 pm
Location: Emory University

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by Alan Patterson »

ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου εξακοσιοι εξηκοντα εξ

Yes, you are correct, sorry, most read "his." According to the parsing of this text at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/gnt/, it lists both θηριου and αυτου as neut, while ανθρωπου is masc. Any thoughts on this since αυτου can be either masc or neut?
χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη,
Alan Patterson
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by cwconrad »

Alan Patterson wrote:ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου εξακοσιοι εξηκοντα εξ

Yes, you are correct, sorry, most read "his." According to the parsing of this text at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/gnt/, it lists both θηριου and αυτου as neut, while ανθρωπου is masc. Any thoughts on this since αυτου can be either masc or neut?
Well, concerning θηρίου there's no question: it's neuter. But αὐτοῦ could be either masculine or neuter. Personally I think it's arbitrary rather you want to undertand αὐτοῦ as referring back to θηρίου or to ἀνθρώπου, inasmuch as τὸ θήριον represents an ἁνθρωπος, so that the number is at the same time the number of the beast and the number of the beast who is a man. If I had to make a choice, I think I'd say that it most likely refers to ἄνθρωπος -- because it's nearer -- but there's no compelling reason why it might not just as well refer back to τὸ θήριον.

Just to be a nuisance, I might add that I personally think that grammatical analysis in questions like this, where we're dealing with equivocal expressions, is hardly -- if at all -- worthwhile. One either understands the text at face value or one doesn't; analysis doesn't clarify it.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Alan Patterson
Posts: 158
Joined: September 3rd, 2011, 7:21 pm
Location: Emory University

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by Alan Patterson »

Dr. Conrad, you wrote this:
Well, concerning θηρίου there's no question: it's neuter. But αὐτοῦ could be either masculine or neuter. Personally I think it's arbitrary rather you want to undertand αὐτοῦ as referring back to θηρίου or to ἀνθρώπου, inasmuch as τὸ θήριον represents an ἁνθρωπος, so that the number is at the same time the number of the beast and the number of the beast who is a man.
Thanks for your contribution. I have not considered θηρίου and ἀνθρώπου as equivolent. Are you implying that one point of this verse is to state that the beast is a man (i.e., human, rather than of another origin)? Could you, perhaps at the same time, clarify your phrase: inasmuch as τὸ θήριον represents an ἁνθρωπος. In what way does this beast "represent" a man? Many thanks, sir.
χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη,
Alan Patterson
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by cwconrad »

Alan Patterson wrote:Dr. Conrad, you wrote this:
Well, concerning θηρίου there's no question: it's neuter. But αὐτοῦ could be either masculine or neuter. Personally I think it's arbitrary rather you want to undertand αὐτοῦ as referring back to θηρίου or to ἀνθρώπου, inasmuch as τὸ θήριον represents an ἁνθρωπος, so that the number is at the same time the number of the beast and the number of the beast who is a man.
Thanks for your contribution. I have not considered θηρίου and ἀνθρώπου as equivolent. Are you implying that one point of this verse is to state that the beast is a man (i.e., human, rather than of another origin)? Could you, perhaps at the same time, clarify your phrase: inasmuch as τὸ θήριον represents an ἁνθρωπος. In what way does this beast "represent" a man? Many thanks, sir.
The text again: Ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν. ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου, ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν, καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ.

I understand the beginning of this text as an invitation to an interpreter to figure out the allegory, to substitute the concrete individual for the "algebraic" symbol, the individual human being for the symbolic term, "beast." I construe ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν thus: ἀριθμοσ ἀνθρώπου is the predicate of the implicit subject drawn from what precedes, namely ὁ ἄριθμος τοῦ θηρίου. "It (the number of the beast) is a man's number." So: yes, I do understand the beast as symbolizing a human being who is identified by the number cited.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by David Lim »

cwconrad wrote:The text again: Ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν. ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου, ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν, καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ.

I understand the beginning of this text as an invitation to an interpreter to figure out the allegory, to substitute the concrete individual for the "algebraic" symbol, the individual human being for the symbolic term, "beast." I construe ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν thus: ἀριθμοσ ἀνθρώπου is the predicate of the implicit subject drawn from what precedes, namely ὁ ἄριθμος τοῦ θηρίου. "It (the number of the beast) is a man's number." So: yes, I do understand the beast as symbolizing a human being who is identified by the number cited.
Alan, I don't know if this might help but here is how I understand it: "αριθμος ανθρωπου" is without the article, so "ο αριθμος αυτου" must be the subject of "εστιν". As Carl said, this means that "αυτου" should refer earlier, naturally to "το θηριον", and therefore also "ο αριθμος αυτου" must refer to "ο αριθμος του θηριου".
δαυιδ λιμ
timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 259
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon »

David Lim wrote:"αριθμος ανθρωπου" is without the article, so "ο αριθμος αυτου" must be the subject of "εστιν".
Why does the absence of the article render αριθμος in the phrase αριθμος ανθρωπου ineligible to be the subject of εστιν?
George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by George F Somsel »

What we have in the case of ἀριθμὸς is a predicate nominative "[it] is a human number." If ἀριθμὸς were the subject, we would then be seeking the predicate [in vain].
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Rev 13.18 antecedent question

Post by David Lim »

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:
David Lim wrote:"αριθμος ανθρωπου" is without the article, so "ο αριθμος αυτου" must be the subject of "εστιν".
Why does the absence of the article render αριθμος in the phrase αριθμος ανθρωπου ineligible to be the subject of εστιν?
For the copulative "ειναι", when one noun phrase is definite and the other is indefinite, the definite noun phrase naturally is the subject. As George said the indefinite noun phrase cannot be the subject as a definite noun phrase cannot be predicated of it. "αριθμος" is indefinite because it is a count noun and lacks the article and there is nothing in the context to imply that it might actually be definite. Constructions with an indefinite predicate in front are quite common and emphasize the predicate; "a man's number is its number".
δαυιδ λιμ
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”