Post apostolos praesens est iudicium

[Pacifica]

Hi colleagues,

One of my books has this gloss, post apostolos praesens est iudicium, above iterum prophetare in Rev. 10:11 et dixit mihi: Oportet te iterum prophetare gentibus, et populis, et linguis, et regibus multis, and I'm not sure at all what it means. I thought perhaps "After the apostles (prophecied), it is my judgement/decision (that you should prophecy)", but I'm not sure at all, because for this I'd have expected rather hoc praesens est iudicium. But if it isn't it I don't really see what it could be, if it's referring to the last judgement I don't know what the point is.

Ideas?

 

[Imber Ranae]

Unfortunately I can't offer the help you need, but I figured it might be worth pointing out that the verb is spelled 'prophesy' and is pronounced differently from the noun 'prophecy'.

 

[Pacifica]

Oh, I knew that but just forgot.

 

[Aurifex]

Like Imber Ranae I can't give you a definitive answer, but at first sight it appears to me that post apostolos praesens est iudicium does refer to the Last Judgement and means "after (in time) the apostles, judgement is at hand." Possibly the prompting to iterum prophetare (before it is too late) reflects the supposed imminence of Judgement Day. You'll surely have a better idea of what's going on here than we do.

 

[Pacifica]

Like Imber Ranae I can't give you a definitive answer, but at first sight it appears to me that post apostolos praesens est iudicium does refer to the Last Judgement and means "after (in time) the apostles, judgement is at hand."

That's the most obvious interpretation, but it somehow felt off-context to me so I started searching other interpretations...

Possibly the prompting to iterum prophetare (before it is too late) reflects the supposed imminence of Judgement Day.

I hadn't thought of that.

You'll surely have a better idea of what's going on here than we do.

Obviously not in this case. Nothing in the surrounding verses or glosses seems to help interpreting this one.

Thanks.

 

[Pacifica]

I've reached this point in my revision. I have for now "after the apostles, judgment is at hand" as Aurifex suggested, but since I'm still not 100% sure I bump just in case someone saw something else.

 

[Callaina]

I've reached this point in my revision. I have for now "after the apostles, judgment is at hand" as Aurifex suggested, but since I'm still not 100% sure I bump just in case someone saw something else.

Given the context, the thing that keeps coming to mind are Jesus' words regarding the end times in Matthew 24: "And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come." (This is traditionally regarded as one of the prophetic signs of the last days, and it was a big deal in the church that I grew up in, at any rate...)

I could see this connection making sense; if John is being called upon to prophesy about "many peoples, nations, languages and kings" in the context of the end times, then (given Jesus' words about the signs of the end times) probably a large part of what he will be prophesying about them is that they will have "apostles" (i.e. missionaries) sent to them, so that all people may hear the Good News, etc, etc.

Anyway, that's all that comes to mind.

 

[Pacifica]

He is to prophesy to many peoples, etc., not about them.

Anyway a reference to what Jesus said still makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Callaina]

He is to prophesy to many peoples, etc., not about them.
Anyway a reference to what Jesus said still makes sense. Thanks.

Heh, not sure how I messed that up but indeed, I think it makes even more sense in that context!

 

[Pacifica]

Perhaps you just hallucinated a de?

 

[Callaina]

Perhaps you just hallucinated a de?

I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't even totally parse the Latin (of the original text) because I thought I knew it so well in English!
Pride goeth before a fall, and all that...

Huh, interestingly the NLT (which is the Bible I own & that my church uses) has "prophesy about" (not to), so maybe I'm not entirely to blame! I wonder if it's a mistranslation? A textual variant? Now I'm curious...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+10

Curiouser and curiouser: nearly every translation has "prophesy about" (or concerning), not "to" http://biblehub.com/revelation/10-11.htm.

 

[Pacifica]

The Douay-Rheims (translated from the Vulgate) has "to", the KJV (translated from the Greek) has "before", and most importantly, the Greek has ἐπι + dat. which is basically "on, at, over" but also "in reference to".

Edited post, Callaina.

 

[Callaina]

Interestingly, the Nova Vulgata has:

Et dicunt mihi: “Oportet te iterum prophetare super populis et gentibus et linguis et regibus multis”.

I take it this would explain the "about" rather than "to"? I wonder why it was changed (and whether it reflects a variant in the Greek, or what...)?

 

[Pacifica]

I guess the Greek is just ambiguous.

 

[Callaina]

Edited post, Callaina.

Oh, just saw this.

Interestingly, the Nova Vulgata has:

Et dicunt mihi: “Oportet te iterum prophetare super populis et gentibus et linguis et regibus multis”.

I take it this would explain the "about" rather than "to"? I wonder why it was changed (and whether it reflects a variant in the Greek, or what...)?

...And I can't help but wonder, as well, why the Nova Vulgata changed the number and tense of the angels speaking!

 

[Pacifica]

Personally, I think I find the "to/before" interpretation a little more likely (because the mission of the apostles was basically to preach to many people), now I don't know...

 

[Callaina]

Personally, I think I find the "to/before" interpretation a little more likely (because the mission of the apostles was basically to preach to many people), now I don't know...

But for your purposes isn't it unambiguously "to"/"for"? I mean, the gloss in question is in reference to your Latin text and your Latin text (presumably) doesn't have the ambiguity that the Greek does, so does it really matter?

 

[Pacifica]

...And I can't help but wonder, as well, why the Nova Vulgata changed the number and tense of the angels speaking!

The Greek version I'm consulting actually has the equivalent of dicunt and not dixit.

I've done a Google search to see if there were other versions, and most of them have λέγουσίν (dicunt), though I've also found one that has λέγει (dicit). I've found no dixit, but I haven't searched a lot either.

 

[Pacifica]

But for your purposes isn't it unambiguously "to"/"for"? I mean, the gloss in question is in reference to your Latin text and your Latin text (presumably) doesn't have the ambiguity that the Greek does, so does it really matter?

No, for my purpose with the gloss it doesn't matter at all, the Latin version I use has unambiguously "to". We're just discussing for general interest here.

 

[Callaina]

Personally, I think I find the "to/before" interpretation a little more likely (because the mission of the apostles was basically to preach to many people), now I don't know...

I guess it depends on how one interprets the book of Revelation generally: was it intended as a secret, esoteric work meant to reveal mysteries (hidden within cryptic symbols) to a select few? (In which case John is probably prophesying about peoples, nations, etc...) Or was it intended for widespread publication (in which case he is probably prophesying to the peoples and nations and so on...)