hers or theirs?

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 4:20:06 AM11/14/21
to
In Revelation 2:22 God is somewhat scathing about a certain woman He
calls "Jezebel" in the church at Pergamum. Because of her continued
impenitance, "I will cast her on a bed of suffering and I will make
those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent
of her ways."

Which brought me up short! How can those who commit adultery with this
woman repent of *her* ways? Or is this the old old story where it is the
woman who is always wrong and the men get off scot-free?

The odd thing is that the KJV says "of their ways", which makes a good
deal more sense, yet all the modern translations I checked say "her
ways", apart from the GNB which gets round the problem by saying "repent
of the wicket things they did with her"!

So I checked the Textus Receptus, which is quite clear: "ton ergon
auton" (all the 'o' are omega, not omikron) - the works theirs. If it
was "her works" it would (I think) be "ton ergon autes".

So I looked up my trusty (not to say, rusty) old Bible Society Greek NT
(which is basically Westcott and Hort) and sure enough, it has "autes",
but the foot notes put the "blame" on a variety of manuscripts, and
leading the charge is good old Sinaiticus (signified by the Hebrew
letter alpha).

Now there are two principles involved here. The first is that the older
manuscript is always to be preferred, the second that the more difficult
reading is to be preferred (on the basis that subsequent scribes might
alter the text to smooth out the difficulty).

These are reasonable principles, but are they necessarily correct in
every instance? Are older MSS free from errors which later manuscripts
have avoided (because they are based on still older MSS which are now
lost to us)? Do scribes never inadvertently introduce a difficulty which
is escaped by later MSS (on the same basis)?

It is, of course, impossible to answer those questions until and unless
an even older manuscript turns up. Nevertheless, I think that "auton" is
correct. John may have lived in difficult circumstances out on Patmos
(though tradition indicates that he in fact lived quite comfortably
there) but I doubt the stress was sufficient to make him write nonsense.
Sinners should repent of their own sins, not someone else's sins.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down


Timreason

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 4:40:07 AM11/14/21
to
I suppose it's possible to say they should repent of embracing 'her
ways', that is, adultery? So, "unless they repent of her ways" could
mean repent of adultery, which is 'Her ways'.

Tim.





Mike Davis

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 11:10:06 AM11/14/21
to
On 14/11/2021 09:10, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In Revelation 2:22 God is somewhat scathing about a certain woman He
> calls "Jezebel" in the church at Pergamum. Because of her continued
> impenitance, "I will cast her on a bed of suffering and I will make
> those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent
> of her ways."
>
> Which brought me up short! How can those who commit adultery with this
> woman repent of *her* ways? Or is this the old old story where it is the
> woman who is always wrong and the men get off scot-free?
>
> The odd thing is that the KJV says "of their ways", which makes a good
> deal more sense, yet all the modern translations I checked say "her
> ways", apart from the GNB which gets round the problem by saying "repent
> of the wicket things they did with her"!

Does 'repent of her practices' fit better? That's what I've got from a
couple of modern (proper) translations. After all it's (repent of..)
"adultery with her".
>
> So I checked the Textus Receptus, which is quite clear: "ton ergon
> auton" (all the 'o' are omega, not omikron) - the works theirs. If it
> was "her works" it would (I think) be "ton ergon autes".
>
> So I looked up my trusty (not to say, rusty) old Bible Society Greek NT
> (which is basically Westcott and Hort) and sure enough, it has "autes",
> but the foot notes put the "blame" on a variety of manuscripts, and
> leading the charge is good old Sinaiticus (signified by the Hebrew
> letter alpha).
>
> Now there are two principles involved here. The first is that the older
> manuscript is always to be preferred, the second that the more difficult
> reading is to be preferred (on the basis that subsequent scribes might
> alter the text to smooth out the difficulty).
>
> These are reasonable principles, but are they necessarily correct in
> every instance? Are older MSS free from errors which later manuscripts
> have avoided (because they are based on still older MSS which are now
> lost to us)? Do scribes never inadvertently introduce a difficulty which
> is escaped by later MSS (on the same basis)?
>
> It is, of course, impossible to answer those questions until and unless
> an even older manuscript turns up. Nevertheless, I think that "auton" is
> correct. John may have lived in difficult circumstances out on Patmos
> (though tradition indicates that he in fact lived quite comfortably
> there) but I doubt the stress was sufficient to make him write nonsense.
> Sinners should repent of their own sins, not someone else's sins.

Indeed!

Mike
--
Mike Davis


Madhu

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 11:30:07 AM11/14/21
to

* "Kendall K. Down" <smqjr1$sn4$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:10:57 +0000:

[Rev. 22:22]
> The odd thing is that the KJV says "of their ways", which makes a good
> deal more sense, yet all the modern translations I checked say "her
> ways", apart from the GNB which gets round the problem by saying
> "repent of the wicket things they did with her"!
>
> So I checked the Textus Receptus, which is quite clear: "ton ergon
> auton" (all the 'o' are omega, not omikron) - the works theirs. If it
> was "her works" it would (I think) be "ton ergon autes".
>
> So I looked up my trusty (not to say, rusty) old Bible Society Greek
> NT (which is basically Westcott and Hort) and sure enough, it has
> "autes", but the foot notes put the "blame" on a variety of
> manuscripts, and leading the charge is good old Sinaiticus (signified
> by the Hebrew letter alpha).


> Now there are two principles involved here. The first is that the
> older manuscript is always to be preferred, the second that the more
> difficult reading is to be preferred (on the basis that subsequent
> scribes might alter the text to smooth out the difficulty).
>
> These are reasonable principles, but are they necessarily correct in
> every instance? Are older MSS free from errors which later manuscripts
> have avoided (because they are based on still older MSS which are now
> lost to us)? Do scribes never inadvertently introduce a difficulty
> which is escaped by later MSS (on the same basis)?

FWIW Wilbur Pickering (who has laboured on those questions and has
published his "best text" ) has this in note in his translation for this
verse

2:22 _So_, I am throwing her into a /sick/bed and those adulterating
with her into great affliction, unless they repent of _her_ works. [m]

[m] Two thirds of the Greek manuscripts, including the most dependable
group, have "her" works, not `their' works. In verse 20 the Lord
emphasized that they were His slaves. If the original reading is "her"
works, as I believe, then what is involved here is spiritual
adultery-she was not literally sleeping with a variety of men in the
church. No matter how much love, faith and service there may be in a
church, the Lord will not tolerate idolatry, which is spiritual
adultery.

> It is, of course, impossible to answer those questions until and
> unless an even older manuscript turns up. Nevertheless, I think that
> "auton" is correct. John may have lived in difficult circumstances out
> on Patmos (though tradition indicates that he in fact lived quite
> comfortably there) but I doubt the stress was sufficient to make him
> write nonsense. Sinners should repent of their own sins, not someone
> else's sins.

[I didn't follow the bit about `auton' but I didn't have a problem when
I read this text -- by "joining" with "her", "her" sins become "their"
sins and that presented no problems to my thinking]


Jason

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 2:53:10 PM11/14/21
to
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:10:57 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> In Revelation 2:22 God is somewhat scathing about a certain woman He
> calls "Jezebel" in the church at Pergamum. Because of her continued
> impenitance, "I will cast her on a bed of suffering and I will make
> those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent
> of her ways."
>
> Which brought me up short! How can those who commit adultery with this
> woman repent of *her* ways? Or is this the old old story where it is the
> woman who is always wrong and the men get off scot-free?

[snipped interesting discussion for brevity.]

I thought it was going to be a diatribe about the use of a woke 'their'
instead of 'her' :-)

Is it not basically saying 'unless they repent of following her
teachings'? I.e. emphasising that it is her teachings specifically that
they need to repent of?

[As an aside, I checked in my Italian CEI Bible just to see what it says,
and it translates as '... if they don't turn from the works that she
taught them']


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 3:30:07 PM11/14/21
to
On 14/11/2021 09:31, Timreason wrote:

> I suppose it's possible to say they should repent of embracing 'her
> ways', that is, adultery? So, "unless they repent of her ways" could
> mean repent of adultery, which is 'Her ways'.

It still seems an odd way of putting it.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 3:30:07 PM11/14/21
to
On 14/11/2021 16:25, Jason wrote:

> Is it not basically saying 'unless they repent of following her
> teachings'? I.e. emphasising that it is her teachings specifically that
> they need to repent of?

That is the way those who reject the Textus Receptus justify their
translation.

> [As an aside, I checked in my Italian CEI Bible just to see what it says,
> and it translates as '... if they don't turn from the works that she
> taught them']

An interesting take on it - showing that "her" is a difficult reading
and "their" much more plausible in terms of Christian doctrine.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 3:30:07 PM11/14/21
to
On 14/11/2021 16:00, Mike Davis wrote:

> Does 'repent of her practices' fit better? That's what I've got from a
> couple of modern (proper) translations. After all it's (repent of..)
> "adultery with her".

Possibly. I'm not sure it's a translation, though. More an interpretation.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 3:30:07 PM11/14/21
to
On 14/11/2021 16:20, Madhu wrote:

> [m] Two thirds of the Greek manuscripts, including the most dependable
> group, have "her" works, not `their' works.

I'm not sure of how you assess "most dependable", other than that the
MSS are older (and therefore assumed to be more dependable) and pass the
artificial textual criticism criteria (like preferring the more
difficult reading).

> In verse 20 the Lord
> emphasized that they were His slaves. If the original reading is "her"
> works, as I believe, then what is involved here is spiritual
> adultery-she was not literally sleeping with a variety of men in the
> church. No matter how much love, faith and service there may be in a
> church, the Lord will not tolerate idolatry, which is spiritual
> adultery.

Various interpretations are possible and the reference to "Jezebel" does
support the idea that it is doctrinal perversion rather than sexual
shennanigans which are being talked about.

> [I didn't follow the bit about `auton' but I didn't have a problem when
> I read this text -- by "joining" with "her", "her" sins become "their"
> sins and that presented no problems to my thinking]

Sorry. 'auton' means "their" whereas 'autes' means "her"

Madhu

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 10:30:06 PM11/14/21
to

* "Kendall K. Down" <smrrdt$2es$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:26:37 +0000:
> On 14/11/2021 16:20, Madhu wrote:
>
>> [m] Two thirds of the Greek manuscripts, including the most dependable
>> group, have "her" works, not `their' works.
>
> I'm not sure of how you assess "most dependable", other than that the
> MSS are older (and therefore assumed to be more dependable) and pass
> the artificial textual criticism criteria (like preferring the more
> difficult reading).

Just to be clear - the text in my post is Dr. Pickering's and not mine.
The debates are carried over (expensive) published books, but he has a
fair amount of material on https://www.prunch.com.br/en (which I haven't
seen recently) "Manuscriptology" and "Answers to Journal Articles"

almost all of the scholarship goes over my head.

>> [I didn't follow the bit about `auton' but I didn't have a problem when
>> I read this text -- by "joining" with "her", "her" sins become "their"
>> sins and that presented no problems to my thinking]
>
> Sorry. 'auton' means "their" whereas 'autes' means "her"

Thanks. I was having a tough time looking it up - with both textus
receptus and Wescott-Hort texts from www.davar3.net,

Since i've been keeping software "uptodate", the advances in technology
means the wine emulator on linux now crashes when I run that program and
try to examine that verse (and it can't even run 16 bit programs from
1987 reliably anymore. sigh)


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 12:40:08 AM11/15/21
to
On 15/11/2021 03:26, Madhu wrote:

> Thanks. I was having a tough time looking it up - with both textus
> receptus and Wescott-Hort texts from www.davar3.net,

I've never heard of that program before.

> Since i've been keeping software "uptodate", the advances in technology
> means the wine emulator on linux now crashes when I run that program and
> try to examine that verse (and it can't even run 16 bit programs from
> 1987 reliably anymore. sigh)

Does your Wine need updating? (I feel a pun about putting new wine into
old skins coming on, but I'll resist.) Alternatively, perhaps some other
version of Linux?

Anyone here with experience of Linux who can advise Madhu?

Madhu

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 9:50:08 PM11/15/21
to
* "Kendall K. Down" <smsrov$f3g$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:38:39 +0000:
> On 15/11/2021 03:26, Madhu wrote:
>> Thanks. I was having a tough time looking it up - with both textus
>> receptus and Wescott-Hort texts from www.davar3.net,
>
> I've never heard of that program before.

I'm sure I've advertised it a few times here. I think it's pretty
good. because it is straightforward, and you can listen to hebrew and
greek audio. It does do one network check to the website but it is
straightforward to turn that off. modern software engineered under the
devil isn't straightforward.

> Does your Wine need updating? (I feel a pun about putting new wine
> into old skins coming on, but I'll resist.)

:)

> Alternatively, perhaps some other version of Linux? Anyone here with
> experience of Linux who can advise Madhu?

I've filed a bug and it's been acknowledged


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 3:50:07 PM11/16/21
to
On 16/11/2021 02:46, Madhu wrote:

> I'm sure I've advertised it a few times here. I think it's pretty
> good. because it is straightforward, and you can listen to hebrew and
> greek audio. It does do one network check to the website but it is
> straightforward to turn that off. modern software engineered under the
> devil isn't straightforward.

Perhaps you have, but I don't remember. I'm afraid that listening to
computer generated Greek or Hebrew would definitely not be an advantage
for me!

Incidentally, has anyone else noticed the films on YouTube such as "10
Most Dangerous ...." or "15 Things You Didn't Know About ...." Listen
carefully and you'll detect that the voice is computer generated. You
will also notice that the accompanying video is very much "Lord Privy Seal".

In case you haven't encountered that before, it is a widely ridiculed
and highly deprecated method of video editing in which scenes relevant
to the script are illustrated on screen, sometimes almost on a word by
word basis, as images flash up and are replaced. The probably
exaggerated "Lord Privy Seal" had three images flash on the screen: a
lord in ermine robes, an outdoor toilet, a seal balancing a ball on its
nose. Get the idea?

Well, these YouTube videos are along those lines and a piece about the
Brazilian rain forest (for example) will cut to pictures of pine trees,
giant sequoias and deer grazing among the trees.

Well, recently I was sent an advertisement for a new video creation
service for vloggers and editors. Upload your script to this website and
it will voice it for you and add clips from its vast copyright-free
library based on the script! I scrubbed the ad almost as soon as I read
it - I don't need such stuff - but clearly others have been tempted by it!

Madhu

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 9:00:08 PM11/16/21
to
* "Kendall K. Down" <sn15bp$psu$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 20:46:49 +0000:
> On 16/11/2021 02:46, Madhu wrote:
>> I'm sure I've advertised it a few times here. I think it's pretty
>> good. because it is straightforward, and you can listen to hebrew and
>> greek audio. It does do one network check to the website but it is
>> straightforward to turn that off. modern software engineered under
>> the devil isn't straightforward.
>
> Perhaps you have, but I don't remember. I'm afraid that listening to
> computer generated Greek or Hebrew would definitely not be an
> advantage for me!

But Davar doesn't use computer generated sounds. It uses
recordings. There aren't many options at present - there are two options
for the old testament (one incomplete) and only a few for the NT.

you have to do the downloading and set up yourself, it's a bit of a
chore.
The hebrew sources are at
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt00.htm#mp3
https://archive.org/details/TanakhAudioRecordingByRabbiDanBeeri-BookByBook
and koine greek sources are from
https://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/free-greek-audio-bible/

All are bonafide recordings.

All the software does is provide a way to index the audio files and
synchronise the audio to the text. So with the index files and mp3
files in the expected locations you can listen to the specific verse as
you view it.

It may be a bit of work to set up, but the instructions are very clear
and simple to follow.


> Incidentally, has anyone else noticed the films on YouTube such as "10
> Most Dangerous ...." or "15 Things You Didn't Know About ...." Listen
> carefully and you'll detect that the voice is computer generated. You
> will also notice that the accompanying video is very much "Lord Privy
> Seal".
>
> In case you haven't encountered that before, it is a widely ridiculed
> and highly deprecated method of video editing in which scenes relevant
> to the script are illustrated on screen, sometimes almost on a word by
> word basis, as images flash up and are replaced. The probably
> exaggerated "Lord Privy Seal" had three images flash on the screen: a
> lord in ermine robes, an outdoor toilet, a seal balancing a ball on
> its nose. Get the idea?
>
> Well, these YouTube videos are along those lines and a piece about the
> Brazilian rain forest (for example) will cut to pictures of pine
> trees, giant sequoias and deer grazing among the trees.
>
> Well, recently I was sent an advertisement for a new video creation
> service for vloggers and editors. Upload your script to this website
> and it will voice it for you and add clips from its vast
> copyright-free library based on the script! I scrubbed the ad almost
> as soon as I read it - I don't need such stuff - but clearly others
> have been tempted by it!

interesting. maybe you should scale down on youtube use :)

I have of course managed to avoid youtube completely and would be glad
to "ascend" without ever having seen a youtube video. if it is hosted on
youtube I probably wont see it at all. There have got to be negative
effects from agreeing to youtube's terms of services. I can say without
doubt that

Google is the antichrist




Kendall K. Down

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 11:20:07 PM11/16/21
to
On 17/11/2021 01:56, Madhu wrote:

> But Davar doesn't use computer generated sounds. It uses
> recordings.

Wow! I'm impressed.

> I have of course managed to avoid youtube completely and would be glad
> to "ascend" without ever having seen a youtube video. if it is hosted on
> youtube I probably wont see it at all. There have got to be negative
> effects from agreeing to youtube's terms of services. I can say without
> doubt that

Don't agree to YouTube's terms of service. I am not aware of giving any
personal details to YouTube - you just go to the website and click on
what you want to view.

There may be paid stuff that you have to sign up for or the usual
cookies nonsense, but only watch the free stuff and reject as many
cookies as possible.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages