Revelation 13:8 and what does "from the foundation of the world" modify?

Hi,

In a discussion with a brother, Rev 13:8 came up. Here is the verse as translated in the NET:

and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.

But the KJV has this:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

You'll notice that in all of the modern translations "from the foundation of the world" is modifying "everyone who's name has not been written" but I had always read it (probably from my KJV readings) and the Open Text Syntactically GNT has it where "from the foundation...." is modifying "that was slain."

Can anyone tell me two things:

1.) Why is there a divided understanding on this passage?

2.) If the proper reading is the one you see above (and all except the KJV have it that way) where the writing was from the foundation, not the slaying, then why does the OTSAGNT have it like the KJV does?

Just wondering....

bob

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George Somsel

Hi,

In a discussion with a brother, Rev 13:8 came up. Here is the verse as translated in the NET:

and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.

But the KJV has this:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

You'll notice that in all of the modern translations "from the foundation of the world" is modifying "everyone who's name has not been written" but I had always read it (probably from my KJV readings) and the Open Text Syntactically GNT has it where "from the foundation...." is modifying "that was slain."

Can anyone tell me two things:

1.) Why is there a divided understanding on this passage?

2.) If the proper reading is the one you see above (and all except the KJV have it that way) where the writing was from the foundation, not the slaying, then why does the OTSAGNT have it like the KJV does?

Just wondering....

bob

I would say that the NET has it correct. The phrase is a part of the clause beginning "all those who dwell on the earth ..." which is the subject of the sentence. You see the same in 17.8 where those "whose name had not been written ..." are mentioned. In 17.8 the AV gets it correct. If nothing else, the parallelism should tend to decide the matter.

1. By "a divided understanding" I assume you mean "Why does the AV translate it differently from the others?" This was most likely a somewhat theological decision rather than a syntactical decision. The translators of the AV were trying to emphasize that the death of Jesus was planned in the beginning. This is not a bad understanding of the theology, but it is not a good understanding of the syntax.

2. What is OTSAGNT?

Robert Pavich

George,

thanks very much for the answer you gave. Yes part of what I meant by "divided understanding" was the KJV but part was the picture below. That's the OPSAGNT...my "lazy type" for Open Text Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament. Notice that they agree with the KJV....

what gives?

here is a screen shot of what I was referring to:

George Somsel

George,

thanks very much for the answer you gave. Yes part of what I meant by "divided understanding" was the KJV but part was the picture below. That's the OPSAGNT...my "lazy type" for Open Text Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament. Notice that they agree with the KJV....

what gives?

here is a screen shot of what I was referring to:

I think I see their reasoning. The personal pronoun with "name" is the 3rd sg rather than being pl (as is "name" as well). They are going with syntactical agreement of this with the singular "Lamb." First of all, the Apocalypse does not always follow strict syntactical rules. This is not infrequent in Koine Greek. The lack of congruence [the term for agreement] with the subject is only with regard to number which might be accounted for by taking each one separately rather than as a group. While the relative is tagged as masc, it could as well be neut. [and probably is]. Secondly, there is the use of the phrase as the subject of the passive verb "to write" within the phrase immediately following and connected by a relative pronoun in the genitive ("of whom") to "all those who dwell upon the earth," It would need to refer toward the end of the sentence to "the Lamb slain ..." which might be somewhat awkward. The answer as to why the AV and Open Text would make it refer to "the Lamb" would simply be based on more normal and "correct" syntax which is something you don't always get in this book. I'm not sure, however, that I would understand the Open Text as actually taking it as referring to "the Lamb." It is the "Lamb's Book of Life" in which the names are written so it would seem somewhat strange to have the "Lamb"'s name" written in his "Book of Life." I think you can take it to the bank that "whose name is not written ..." refers to the dwellers on the earth.

Robert Pavich

George,

thanks for your detailed reply. Much appreciated.

I learn something new everyday...