Jaltus,
Wow. You put up an excellent argument, I must admit. Thank you for that - I had to search really hard to find some valuable info, and I'm still not completely finished. These are just some preliminary findings.
1) proximity, it comes after the lamb instead of before it, which would be the natural position if it were to modify names
when a phrase can modify 2 possible other phrases, it is always taken to go with the closest unless it is nonsensical.
This is absolutely true.
2) text critical work, which clearly shows that the "names" phrase may not be original (it does not appear in many of the oldest manuscripts, such as Aleph), but both the lamb and the foundations phrases are undisputed.
This is where I have a problem, Jaltus. The Codex Sinaiticus [Aleph] is considered by many to be one of the
worst MSS in existence. When comparing it to the Textus Receptus, Dean Burgon found that there were 3,392 deflections in the Aleph. There were several hundred or even thousands in the A, B, C, and D Uncials.
Scrivener, in his
Full Collation of the Sinaiticus says:
"It must be confessed, indeed, that Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance… Letters, and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder (Homeoteleuton) whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding it occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament, though this defect is often supplied by a more recent hand."
Burgon wrote:
"We venture to assure him (Bishop Ellicott), without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph, B and D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant; exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with… having become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of truth… which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God."
Now, these are only preliminary findings, but it appears to me that the Aleph cannot be trusted 100%. In fact, I understand that it was found in a trash can in a monastary on Mt. Sinai. Perhaps someone put it there for good reason? (Sorry, a little MS joke there) Which brings me to my point: Perhaps, just perhaps, "names" does not appear in these older MSS because they are corrupt. I'm not certain, but it is a possibility. I did find two texts, the Alexandrian and the Byzantine Majority, which have
onama [Gk. names] in Rev. 13:8.
This is a small point, however. It appears to me that "from the foundation of the world" doesn't modify "names" but rather "written." It is a prep. phrase describing
when this "?" was written. As far as I can tell, almost every text has either "names" or a pronoun, such as "whosoever." Thus, a translation might be "Whosoever was not written from the foundation of the world..."
As far as grammar goes, you've got me. You are absolutely right. The proximity plays a very important part. However, since Rev. 17:8 is indisputable, I still believe, based on the credibility of the MSS, my findings (thus far), and the general Biblical agreement (in my opinion) with the OV, that Rev. 13:8 could be translated "...written since the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain."
I am
not, by any means, ruling out the possibility that
apo modifies Lamb. That is basic Greek syntax and cannot be disputed. However, I do feel, based on my current findings, that
both of our views can be seen through this verse. Thus, both of our views can be supported.
Of course, there is still a lot of research to be done on this subject, and I hope that you provide some further information to support your view, Jaltus.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
