Articles "a" "an" "the" (page 2)

Fred E Hathaway

***rechap.6p.27UnlockingaSacredSecret***

*In the original Hebrew at Isaiah 44:6, there is no definite article with the words "first" and "last", [so the phrase in question] describes Jehovah's Godship.

The online Hebrew Bible Explorer gives the KJV text as: Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of host: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God. It vocalizes the Hebrew as ko-a.mar a.do.nai me.lekh-yis.ra.el ve.go.a.lo a.do.nai tse.va.ot a.ni ri.shon va.a.ni a.kha.ron u.mi.bal.a.daiein e.lo.him:

From my rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, I note that a.do.nai[=LORD] is used in place of ye.ho.vah[=Jehovah]. Also, the phrase in question [the first and the last] is literally a.ni[=I am] ri.shon[=first, in front (of all)] va.a.ni[=and I am] a.kha.ron[=last, behind (all)]. I get the idea that Jehovah sets the parameters, that Jehovah disciplines by both instruction and support.

Fred E Hathaway

**r*echap.6p.27UnlockingaSacredSecret***

In Jesus' description of himself in the original Greek at Revelation 1:17, the definite article is found. So, grammatically, Revelation 1:17 indicates a title.

Following up my preceding comment on the Hebrew, I note the Greek phrase in question [rendered in the NWT as the First and the Last] in context as follows, from the Westcott & Hort text of 1881 [using my own transliteration and meanings]: egw[=I] eimi[=am] 'o[=the] prwtos[=first, initial] kai [=and] 'o[=the] eskhatos[=last, final], kai[=and] 'o[=the] zwn[=living one].

My knowledge of Greek is rudimentary also, only a little better than my knowledge of Hebrew, so I'm sure that I don't know about some of the subtleties in as much detail as those who have done the research that went into the NWT, or even the comments made in the Revelation Climax book, both of which employ grade-school English, rather than University-level language.

The main distinction that I see in comparing these 2 contexts [in Revelation versus the one in Isaiah] is the complete absence of the aspects of rulership surrounding the Greek phrase in question, vis-à-vis the Hebrew. Thus, while both Jehovah and Jesus are completely superior to the angels and the congregation, etc., Jehovah's being "the first and last" is to a superlative degree compared to even Jesus'.

So, although I may not have thought to use the wording of the WTS, the meaning comes out the same. Jesus, being the created being, and Jehovah, the Creator, maintain their relative positions, in line with Jesus' own assertions that the Father [Jehovah] is greater than he [Jesus] is.

Alligator Wisdom

Thanks all for your research and input.

Now all I have to do is decipher it into the type of English that I understand.

Alligator Wisdom (aka Brother NOT Exerting Vigorously by WTS standards) of the simple mind class.

Inquisitor

Now all I have to do is decipher it into the type of English that I understand. - Alligator Wisdom

Glad to know I'm not alone!! lol

Nark, could you please elaborate on the second para of your post?

It is worth noting that the allusion to Deutero-Isaiah is not dependent on the LXX, neither in 44:6 (as Craig pointed out) nor in 48:12 which has prôtos ("first," anarthrous) and eis ton aiôna ("forever"). The Revelation version renders the formal Hebrew parallelism better, if not its meaning (it may be "before" and "after" as well as "first" and "last").

What do you mean when you say that D-Isaiah is not dependent on the LXX? How does this relate to the use/absence of definite articles?

Thanks,

INQ

Narkissos

It is worth noting that the allusion to Deutero-Isaiah is not dependent on the LXX, neither in 44:6 (as Craig pointed out) nor in 48:12 which has prôtos ("first," anarthrous) and eis ton aiôna ("forever"). The Revelation version renders the formal Hebrew parallelism better, if not its meaning (it may be "before" and "after" as well as "first" and "last").
What do you mean when you say that D-Isaiah is not dependent on the LXX? How does this relate to the use/absence of definite articles?

I meant Revelation's allusion to D-Isaiah.

The wording of Revelation, egô eimi ho prôtos kai ho eskhatos, doesn't follow the LXX wording of either
Isaiah 44,6, egô prôtos kai egô meta tauta, or 48,12, egô eimi prôtos kai egô eimi eis ton aiôna.

Whether the Revelation formula is to be read as a title or not, the presence of the article tends to slightly absolutise the meaning. The nuance is about the same as "I am the first and the last" vs. "I am first and last". Subtle, but perceptible. Too fine for the heavy paws of dogmatics though.

pixel

What is funny about this is that the article "the" appears in both texts, so, if the WT says that "the" is not in Isaiah, why they insert it anyway?

pixel

What is funny about this is that the article "the" appears in both texts, so, if the WT says that "the" is not in Isaiah, why they insert it anyway?

onacruse

pixel, the "insertions" of "a, an, the," are very often a functional necessity of translation (in terms of the resultant language), not necessarily a reflection of the underlying text.

For example, if I was to go to France and try to have a conversation with Narkissos, he would, by the nature of his French language, use word structures that would come across to me as "wow, you certainly have a back-asswards way of saying things!" LOL

No disrespect intended.

Leolaia

Narkissos....One interesting thing is that the Hexaplaric text of Isaiah 48:12 LXX has egó prótos, egó eskhatos which looks like a nice example of the kind of assimilation to the MT that is found in the Hexaplaric Septuagint.

Fred E Hathaway

Jesus, like the Apostle Paul, knows the truth as a language (he had made Jehovah's truth his own, we could say), so he didn't just stick to exact phraseology, whether of the original Hebrew, or the LXX translation. He thought "on his feet" like we all should. Hope that helps us in our effort not to fight over words. [2 Tim. 2:14, 24].

Articles "a" "an" "the"

Share this