ἄλλον ἄγγελον Rev. 14:6 — part 2

Rev. 14:6 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον πετόμενον ἐν μεσουρανήματι, ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον εὐαγγελίσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς καθημένους ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ λαόν,

Rev. 14:6   Then I saw another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; RSV

Yesterday we looked at ἄλλον ἄγγελον in  Rev. 14:6 and raised the question, who is the “other” angel, the antecedent of ἄλλον. One solution is to look back several chapters to the last mentioned angel. Another solution is to understand ἄλλον ἄγγελον in Rev. 14:6 as an introduction to a series of two or more angels in close succession. John 4:37 shows ἄλλος introducing a comparison. The first ἄλλος has no antecedent. It marks the beginning of a comparison.

John 4:37... ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ σπείρων καὶ ἄλλος ὁ θερίζων.
 …  One sows and another reaps.

This is not an exact parallel to what we see in Rev. 14:6 where the first ἄλλον is the beginning of a longer series[1] and the notion of comparison is not prominent. However, John 4:37 does illustrate an initial ἄλλος used without an antecedent. I’m not inclined at the moment to adopt this solution. Angels are always discourse active in the Apocalypse of John so an antecedent in the normal sense isn’t required for the expression ἄλλον ἄγγελον. The antecedent is supplied from John’s apocalyptic framework, we need not search for it in the immediate co-text.

Searching for the antecedent has lead to further confusion in regard to ἄλλος ἄγγελος in Rev. 14:15

Rev. 14:14 Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη λευκή, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, ἔχων ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ στέφανον χρυσοῦν καὶ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ δρέπανον ὀξύ.  15 καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ κράζων ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης· πέμψον τὸ δρέπανόν σου καὶ θέρισον, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα θερίσαι, ὅτι ἐξηράνθη ὁ θερισμὸς τῆς γῆς.

Rev. 14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand.  15 And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat upon the cloud,  “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.”

M. R. Hoffmann[2] argues that ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου “seated on the cloud one like a son of man” must be an “angel” since this participant immediately precedes ἄλλος ἄγγελος “another angel” in verse 15. On this point I part ways with Hoffmann. Angels abound[3] in the immediate co-text, the introduction of a non-angelic participant in the midst of several angels does not cause problems for ἄλλος ἄγγελος “another angel” in verse 15. To illustrate, we could alter the narrative so that a riderless horse is introduced in verse 14. Given that scenario reading  ἄλλος ἄγγελος in verse fifteen we would not be inclined to view the riderless horse as an angelic participant since the riderless horse is not used as a symbol of angelic beings. I argue that the Daniel 7:13 allusion in Rev. 14:14 like the riderless horse opens a different scenario. This reading and Hoffman's are both controversial. 

   [1] This series could be understood as having three elements, Rev. 14:6,8,9 or five elements including 14:5,17.

Rev. 14:6 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον …    
I saw another angel …

Rev. 14:8 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος δεύτερος ἠκολούθησεν λέγων·
Another angel, a second, followed, saying …

Rev. 14:9 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος τρίτος ἠκολούθησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων
Another angel, a third, followed them, saying …

Rev. 14:15 καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ
Another angel came out of the temple …

Rev. 14:17 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
Another angel came out of the temple in heaven

[2]Matthias Reinhard Hoffmann, “The destroyer and the lamb: the relationship between angelomorphic and lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation” Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

[3]The angelic messengers are ubiquitous, the scenario invoked by ἄλλος ἄγγελος “another angel” is always active and open, but John opens numerous other scenarios nested within the high level apocalyptic framework.      

ἄλλον ἄγγελον Rev. 14:6 — a crux interpretum or a crux interpretorum

Rev. 14:6 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον πετόμενον ἐν μεσουρανήματι, ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον εὐαγγελίσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς καθημένους ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ λαόν,

Rev. 14:6   Then I saw another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; RSV

Is there a serious problem concerning the referent of  ἄλλον in this text? Or does the problem only reside in the minds of some interpreters? Matthias R. Hoffmann[1] raises the question. I reviewed a host of commentaries  on Revelation (H. Alford, H.B. Swete, F. Duesterdieck, R.H. Charles, R. Mounce, G. Beale,  E. F. A. Lupieri, G. Fee, others) and didn’t find them overly concerned about the use of ἄλλον with ἄγγελον in this context.

Angels are an assumed presence in the Apocalypse of John. From a discourse perspective, we can assume that angelic beings (as a group) are always treated in the discourse as active participants. We see individual angels introduced as new participants to perform some action and then disappear often never to be heard or seen again. But the presence of angels, near at hand and prepared to come “on stage,” is always assumed. For this reason the span of text between Rev. 14:6 and the last mentioned angel, either Rev. 12:7-9 or Rev. 11:15, doesn’t present a major problem for the use of ἄλλον with ἄγγελον in this context. It has been suggested that  ἄλλον may function here like the english indefinite article. But it also indicates that this ἄγγελον is one in a series. Note the pattern:

Rev. 7:2 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον
I saw another angel …
 
Rev. 8:3 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἦλθεν
Another angel came 

Rev. 10:1 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν καταβαίνοντα
I saw another mighty angel

Rev. 14:6 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον …    
I saw another angel …

Rev. 14:8 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος δεύτερος ἠκολούθησεν λέγων·
Another angel, a second, followed, saying …

Rev. 14:9 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος τρίτος ἠκολούθησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων
Another angel, a third, followed them, saying …

Rev. 14:15 καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ
Another angel came out of the temple …

Rev. 14:17 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
Another angel came out of the temple in heaven

[1]Matthias Reinhard Hoffmann, “The destroyer and the lamb: the relationship between angelomorphic and lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation” Mohr Siebeck, 2005, page 35

Naming Angels in Qumran texts

In the last post we noticed that John the author of the Apocalypse very rarely identifies angels by name. Darrell D. Hannah[1] makes note of a similar pattern at Qumran which he attributes to reticence among the Qumran sectarians to name angels. Hannah cites a well known passage from Josephus (War ii. 142) concerning an oath taken by Essenes “Not to communicate their doctrines … and to preserve in like manner both the books of their sect and the names of the angels.[2]”  We do not know if John had any connection with Essenes or the Qumran sectarians but there may have been other cultural factors that made the naming of angels undesirable.

[1] Darrell D. Hannah,  Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. 1999, Mohr Siebeck, p.68.

[2]Josephus (War ii. 142) … κἂν μέχρι θανάτου τις βιάζηται. πρὸς τούτοις ὄμνυσιν μηδενὶ  μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς μετέλαβεν, ἀφέξεσθαι δὲ λῃστείας καὶ συντηρήσειν ὁμοίως τά τε τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν 4 βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα. τοιούτοις μὲν ὅρκοις τοὺς 5 προσιόντας ἐξασφαλίζονται. 

Angels & participant reference in the Apocalypse of John the Apostle

The question, does the Apocalypse ever identify Jesus Christ as an Angel, might sound simple to someone who hasn’t looked into it with any seriousness. I’ve been thinking about it for a while, wondering what a text linguist might do with the problem. Patterns of participant reference are a fascinating feature of the Apocalypse. In numerous passages John almost appears to have intentionally created confusion about who is the agent of some action or the speaker of some proclamation.  

The Apocalypse shows distinctive patterns of participant reference in regard to Angels. They appear on stage, perform certain actions, make proclamations and then disappear. On rare occasions an angel may be given a name:

Rev. 9:11 ἔχουσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν βασιλέα τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἀβαδδών, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ ὄνομα ἔχει Ἀπολλύων.

Rev. 9:11 They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon. RSV

Rev. 12:7 Καὶ ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ δράκοντος. καὶ ὁ δράκων ἐπολέμησεν καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ,

Rev. 12:7   Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,

John leaves most angels unnamed and occasionally introduces them with indefinite modifiers ἄλλον ἄγγελον “another angel”[1] or εἷς ἄγγελος ἰσχυρὸς “a certain strong angel”[2]. John provides identity when it suits his purpose. In most cases the only identity offered is the role of the angel performs in the vision.

Another means of identification is the angel’s close association with God. In Rev. 1:1, 22:6  we read  ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ,  ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ where the angel who is sent by God has a possessive genitive pronoun. This might be understood as a reference to מלאך יהוה ἄγγελος κυρίου The Angel of the Lord. We see a similar pattern in 22:16  Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου “I Jesus have sent my angel …” where the genitive pronoun μου might be understood as indicating a special status. However,  מלאך יהוה probably functions as a title whereas μου and αὐτοῦ are simply descriptive modifiers.  An amateur theologian might quibble that all the (elect) Angels could be referred to as ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ but that raises the question, why bother saying it at all. In other words, it fails the test of relevance. Jesus Christ doesn’t waste words, when he says ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου “I have sent my angel …” μου conveys some significant information.  However, the pronoun is exceedingly ambiguous so the significance isn't perfectly obvious.

Another means of indicating close association with God is the position of the angel: Rev. 8:2  εἶδον τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλους οἳ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν “I saw the seven angels who stand before God” Rev. 8:4 τοῦ ἀγγέλου ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ “the angel before God.”

At this moment in my project, I don’t think John’s pattern of identifying angels lends much support to those who see Jesus Christ as the referent of ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν Rev. 10:1. In the two cases where the identity of an angel was important to John (Rev. 9:11,12:7) he named them.   

[1] For  ἄλλον ἄγγελον “another angel” see Rev. 7:2, Rev. 8:3, Rev. 10:1, Rev. 14:6, Rev. 14:8, Rev. 14:9, Rev. 14:15, Rev. 14:17, Rev. 14:18, Rev. 18.

[2] εἷς ἄγγελος ἰσχυρὸς “a certain strong angel” Rev. 18:2

τὰ ῥήματα הדברים used in a narrative contextualizer

This morning I was reading C. A. Gieschen’s monograph on Angelomorphic Christology[1]. In the chapter on hypostases, discussing “The Word of the Lord,” Gieschen cites Gen. 15 where Abram experiences a theophany which is introduced by the formula “After these things the Word of YHWH came to Abram in  a vision.”[2]     

Gen. 15:1
μετὰ δὲ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα
‎‏אחר הדברים האלה
ἐγενήθη ῥῆμα κυρίου πρὸς Αβραμ …
‎היה דבר־יהוה אל־אברם 

Reading the LXX, I noticed that the clause initial adverbial contextualizer  μετὰ δὲ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα “After these things” includes ῥήματα (words, things, events ...) which is repeated in the next clause ἐγενήθη ῥῆμα κυρίου “the Word of YHWH happened[3].”  The LXX (old greek OG) follows the Hebrew closely. No english translation I have seen makes this play on words (if it is one) obvious. I couldn’t find any other examples of this in the MT (Hebrew Bible) or LXX.

The temporal contextualizer which includes τὰ ῥήματα rendering הדברים  appears other places in the Hebrew bible[4] but only once (Gen. 15:1) with דבר in the following clause. The contextualizer μετὰ δὲ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα does not appear in the New Testament, although take a look at Luke 9:28 Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους where μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους “after these sayings” functions as a contextualizer. In this case τοὺς λόγους is understood by the english translators as refering to speech not a generic term for events like τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα.

The New testament uses μετὰ ταῦτα (after these things) as a narrative contextualizer with the bulk of the examples in John and Revelation. This is common enough in ancient greek narrative.

Thucydides, Hist.
Book 1, chapter 56, section 1, line 1

Μετὰ ταῦτα δ' εὐθὺς καὶ τάδε ξυνέβη γενέσθαι τοῖς
Ἀθηναίοις καὶ Πελοποννησίοις διάφορα ἐς τὸ πολεμεῖν.


Thucydides, Hist.
Book 1, chapter 100, section 1, line 1
Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἡ ἐπ' Εὐρυμέδοντι ποταμῷ     


[1] Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence,  Brill  1998, page 103.

[2] Gieschen’s translation.


[3] Most english versions say “the word of the LORD came …” which uses a travel metaphor but the hebrew and greek both use the existential verb ‏היה ἐγενήθη which isn’t a travel metaphor. The word of the Lord is an event, it happens. For the travel metaphor, see  Jer. 17:15 ἰδοὺ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι πρός με ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος κυρίου ἐλθάτω. Jer. 17:15 Behold, they say to me,  “Where is the word of the LORD? Let it come!” RSV.  


[4]Gen. 15:1‏,  ‎Gen. 22:1,‏  ‎Gen. 39:7,‏  ‎Gen. 40:1,‏  ‎1Kings 13:33‏,  ‎1Kings 17:17,‏  ‎1Kings 21:1,‏  ‎Esth. 2:1‏  ‎Esth. 3:1,‏  ‎Ezra 7:1.‏

Is Jesus Christ an Angel in Revelation 1:1?

Rev. 1:1 Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ

Rev. 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, RSV

Yesterday I was mulling over the chain of agency in Revelation 1:1. One way of reading it, adopted by many; God is the first agent, Jesus Christ the second, the Angel the third, and John the recipient who wrote it down, a fourth agent. In what follows, the Angel seems to drop out of sight. In the vision of the glorified Christ, the speaker is Christ not the Angel. So why was the Angel introduced as an agent if the Angel doesn’t participate in the vision at this point? Participants who, once they are introduced, do nothing and have no apparent  function in the narrative are an anomaly.

There is an alternative reading of this text which solves the problem. The agent (subject) of ἐσήμανεν “ [he] made it known” is ambiguous. It could be ὁ θεὸς God or Jesus Christ. If we follow Robert H. Gundry[1] and read ὁ θεὸς God as the agent of ἐσήμανεν, then the next agent in the chain is Jesus Christ referred to as τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ “his Angel”, i.e. The Angel of the Lord[2].

Not everyone is pleased with this reading. Some argue that ὁ θεὸς God is the subject of a relative clause, which puts ὁ θεὸς in the background of the narrative. However, that argument assumes a certain parsing of the Rev. 1:1, where Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ a genitive modifier of Ἀποκάλυψις becomes the agent of a verb several clauses later. That analysis assumes that καὶ ἐσήμανεν “and [he] made it known” which is introduced by καὶ, following two relative clauses, returns to the top level of the discourse. In other words, it is assumed that everything between Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and καὶ ἐσήμανεν is backgrounded. This would make a certain amount of sense if we are reading historical narrative in a native Greek author. But John’s  language habits make it somewhat hazardous to be dogmatic about the difference between a clause introduced by καὶ and a relative clause. John in the Apocalypse appears to move back and forth between hypotaxis and parataxis in manner which leaves the exegete guessing about the discourse structure. I would suggest that the syntax arguments against R. Gundry’s reading are inconclusive.     

Perhaps a more compelling argument against Gundry’s reading could be advanced by considering similar language in

Rev 22:16 Εγω Ιησους επεμψα τον αγγελον μου μαρτυρησαι υμιν ταυτα επι ταις εκκλησιαις. — SBLGNT, M. Holmes ed.

Rev. 22:16   “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.” ESV

C. A. Gieschen[3] considers this a refutation of Gundry’s reading. I am not totally convinced. Perhaps in the next post, we can take a look at this.

[1] Robert H. Gundry,   “Angelomorphic Christology in the Book of Revelation” Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Pp. 672–673

[2] This connection with The Angel of the Lord, isn’t taken from Gundry, who I don’t have on hand.

[3] Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence,  Brill  1998.

The weak shall be strong Rev 1:2

Rev. 1:2 ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅσα εἶδεν.

Rev. 1:2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. NIV2011

Gordon Fee, once again, wants to nail down the meaning of an ambiguous genitive. The NIV2011 rendered τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ directly as “the word of God” which is almost as ambiguous as the greek. Fee doesn’t like what E. A. Gutt calls “weak communication,” where multiple readings are possible. The job of the exegete is to explore the various options but not necessarily nail one of them down. Weak communication is what makes great literature different from an automobile maintenance manual. Weak communication is goodness. Fee argues that the genitive in τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ should be understood as “the word from God.” But this doesn’t seem that obvious. It is also a word that belongs to God, a word uniquely identified as God’s word, and not inconsequentially associated with the The Word in the prolog to the Gospel of John. All of these associations some others are shut down by making this strong communication, “the word from God.” 

G. Fee treats the greek genitive as an enemy of clarity, i.e. one and only one sense. But that kind of clarity isn’t desirable in great literature. E. A. Gutt argues that multiple inference is a very desirable feature of great literature and the weak communication is very powerful.       

Oecumenius (?) comment on Rev. 1:1b

H. B. Swete (Rev. Com. p.2)  has a citation from Arethas which I found in the TLG-E as a work by Oecumenius. The date and author are somewhat uncertain, never the less it is an early, perhaps not real early, work on Revelation which gives support for the reading of ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ found in most modern commentaries and translations.

Oecumenius Phil., Rhet., Commentarius in Apocalypsin (2866: 001)
“The complete commentary of Oecumenius on the Apocalypse”, Ed. Hoskier, H.C. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1928. Page 32, line 19

ἐντεῦθεν αὐτῷ τῷ εἰπεῖν ἀποκάλυψις, δέδοται μὲν παρὰ τοῦ πάτρος τῷ υἱῷ· δέδοται δὲ παρὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡμῖν τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ.

“Although the present revelation has been given by the Father to the Son, it has now been given by the Son to us” [1]

[1]  John N. Suggit, trans. Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse The Fathers of the Church 112, page 22. Catholic University of America Press, March 2006

Christology of Revelation 1:1

H. Alford (Greek Testament) discusses the christology of Rev 1:1, responding to a objection raised in his day that Jesus Christ should be cast in the role of a recipient who was given the Αποκαλυψις from God. If Jesus Christ was fully God, why does he, even in his glorified state need to be told what to say? The notion of Jesus as a mediator of divine speech and also agent of divine works is well developed in John’s Gospel. But that was the period when the eternal Word of God was in a state of humiliation, taking on the form of a man. The question then is not what Jesus did as a man on earth but what role the exalted Christ has in regard to the revelation found in the Apocalypse of John.  

Revelation of John 1:
1  Αποκαλυψις Ιησου Χριστου, ην εδωκεν αυτῳ ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου, α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει, και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τῳ δουλῳ αυτου Ιωαννῃ, 2  ος εμαρτυρησεν τον λογον του θεου και την μαρτυριαν Ιησου Χριστου, οσα ειδεν. — SBLGNT Michael W. Holmes ed.

Rev. 1:1   The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,  2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. NRSV

The standard way to read the relative clause  ην εδωκεν αυτῳ ο θεος δειξαι is demonstrated in the NRSV “which God gave him to show.” It is of course always possible to find a scholar, one or two, who advocate an alternative reading of εδωκεν. The verb  δίδωμι is extremely common with a wide range of use. Louw & Nida show sixteen semantic domains, here are two abbreviated entries:

13.128 δίδωμι: to cause to happen, used particularly in relationship to physical events

13.142 δίδωμι; παραδίδωμιd: to grant someone the opportunity or occasion to do something — ‘to grant, to allow.’ 

The dative pronoun αυτῳ makes good sense with both of these. If we were to read the genitive in Αποκαλυψις Ιησου Χριστου as one of possession (i.e. ownership) with a secondary notion of agency and δίδωμι as grant or allow, then we could perhaps eliminate the objection discussed (but rejected) by Alford. David Aune goes halfway there by translating εδωκεν “granted”. But he immediately points out the familiar Johannine theme, “God is the ultimate source of revelation, and Christ the agent of that revelation…” John 15:15 “ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν” “for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” RSV.  Also in Matt. 11:27 we see the Son as God’s agent of revelation:

Matt. 11:27 Πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι. NA27

Matt. 11: 27 All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. RSV

There appears to be an unstated assumption in most of the secondary literature that Jesus earthly role as God’s spokesman also represents his exalted role after the resurrection and ascension. This question requires more thought.   

Gordon Fee & direct translation of Revelation 1:1

As most of you probably know, Gordon Fee’s book on Revelation was published early this year by  Wipf & Stock. I found it at the local library. Gordon Fee is a professional textual critic and New Testament exegete. His works on Philippians and First Corinthians are required reading. The target audience for his Revelation commentary is general readers. The text used is the NIV2011 but his exegesis is most certainly based on the Greek text. This is not a review, rather a continuation of our discussion of direct translation.

In the notes on Revelation 1:1 Fee points out the ambiguity in the first verse of the Apocalypse and what the NIV committee[1] did to remove it. Removing ambiguity results in a curtailment of inferential options. In other words, there are alternative readings in the Greek text which are eliminated in the NIV2011 (hereafter, NIV).

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,  NIV2011

Revelation of John 1:
1  Αποκαλυψις Ιησου Χριστου, ην εδωκεν αυτῳ ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου, α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει, και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τῳ δουλῳ αυτου Ιωαννῃ,  — SBLGNT  M. Holmes

Three words into the NIV the first ambiguity is removed, “from Jesus Christ” makes Jesus the source or agent of the revelation. The genitive construction Αποκαλυψις Ιησου Χριστου is ambiguous, Jesus Christ could also be the substance (object) of the revelation.  John the Apostle[2] was a cleaver author. He certainly understood ambiguity and used it intentionally. Fee argues that the very next clause ην εδωκεν αυτῳ ο θεος δειξαι … “which God gave him to show” supports the NIV rendering of the genitive. But that argument is self defeating. If that clause makes it obvious in greek[3] it also makes it obvious in english and for that reason there is no need to remove the ambiguity. Retaining the ambiguity “the revelation of Jesus Christ” preserves the literary quality of John’s original, the intentional use of language with a potential double meaning. In other words, the original wording had inferential richness which the NIV removes. A direct translation would retain the ambiguity.

[1]G. Fee is a member of the NIV committee.

[2]I agree with Gordon Fee, that the author of the apocalypse was the Apostle John who was also the author of the John’s Gospel.

[3] Not everyone agrees that it is obvious, see F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St. John 1-3: The Greek Text with Introduction , Commentary, and Additional Notes, Macmillan and. Co., 1908.