Given that the Greek text for Revelation 5:3-4 twice gives the word for ‘one’, why does the AV twice say ‘man’?

Question

Rev 5:3-4 (AV, emphasis added)

“And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.”

Rev 5:3-4 (YLT)

“…and no one was able, nor upon the earth, nor under the earth, to open the scroll, nor to behold it. And I was weeping much, because no one was found worthy to open and to read the scroll, nor to behold it.”

Both translations work from the same Greek text, and even those that use variant readings have no quarrel with the fact that ‘one’ [eis] is in the text both times, and they translate it as ‘one’.

I see a problem here that goes beyond technicalities, for the Revelation goes on to show that the Lion, who is the Lamb (the glorified, resurrected Christ now back in heaven) is the one who then steps forward as able to open the seven-sealed book. This Lamb of God is also called “the man from heaven” in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15:7 & 1 Timothy 2:5). Therefore, this glorified man was the only one fit to open that sealed book.

Would it not be a contradiction for Rev. 5:3-4 to say no man could open it, yet v. 9 identifies the one who does as the Christ who was slain, and with whose blood he purchased men for God?

Therefore, why does the AV twice say ‘man’ when it really should say ‘one’?

Answer 1

οὐδείς Strong 3762 definitely means 'no-one, none, nothing'.

There is no Greek word for 'man' in the text : neither anthropos nor aner nor arsen nor arrhen (loosely 'humanity' 'identifiable man' 'male' 'batchelor').

Robert Young is correct. And the OP is correct.

The question makes a very necessary distinction.

'No-one' excludes angels.

Necessarily, it is masculine (by default). But it is a semantic gender not a matter of real masculinity as opposed to femininity. Thus it cannot be assumed to be a human, masculine 'man'.

Being grammatically masculine does not imply that only humanity is under consideration.

To answer the question, it is a fault of the KJV, and this fault can also be seen in certain passages of Hebrews (3:3 for example) where the word 'man' is added where it is not there in Greek and this influences interpretations regarding Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

No-one on earth, nor any angel in heaven, nor even Deity as abstractly considered, could do what the Lion of the tribe of Judah was able to accomplish - but only after manifestation, after suffering, after death, after resurrection and after ascension to the throne of God.

Humanity raised to the throne of Deity was the only way to unlock the seals and bring forth all the purposes of God.

No-one but that One, was able, in and of himself, and through what was accomplished through him, to do what John wept for.

And only when that One had appeared as he did and had done what he did, was it achieved.

The OP is right to note the distinction that Robert Young has correctly translated.

---

Edit after comment : It was thought there might be ambiguity in the above so I have commented as follows :

The distinction is God manifested in humanity. That can only happen (and did happen) in one way. By the Son making himself 'of no reputation' and suffering even death, and even the death of the cross.

Answer 2

Synonym, but this is about context

Not to condescend, but we should know out the door that this is a very good, beginner level question. When we don't find understanding, we tend to look for meaning in a single word, even if that word won't satisfy our curiosity. In hermeneutics—Biblical or for other literature—looking intensively toward one word indicates that we might benefit by looking at the larger picture, and also at the original language.

Original language

Since this is partly a translation question, it was appropriate for the OP to look at the original Greek. Let's take a deeper look...

Rev 5:3-5 (Nestle-Aland 26th, emphasis added)

3καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό. 4καὶ ἔκλαιον πολὺ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό. 5καὶ εἷς ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λέγει μοι, Μὴ κλαῖε: ἰδοὺ ἐνίκησεν ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα, ἡ ῥίζα Δαυίδ, ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ.

The word οὐδεὶς (oudeis) means "no one" in the sense of "no person", v3. And, εἷς (heis) from v5 means "one" in the sense of "one [person]", refering to "one" of the elders who addressed John. This is very similar to English use of "one" in place of "someone".

Translating the word as "man" would not change the meaning whatsoever. I defer to BDAG and Kittel for studies on that matter, but this is not the main question. The main question was whether it is a contradiction to say Jesus opens it, thus Jesus can't be a "man" since no "man" can open it.

Is this a contradiction?

No. This is mainly because the purpose of this passage is not to develop an ontology of Jesus's character. It's a narration of events.

A larger question of contradiction would not be about using "man" vs "one" to mean "person", but the fact that vv3-4 records that there wasn't anyone worthy, but v5 reports that there is someone who is worthy. So, is there someone worthy or not? First there wasn't, then there was. That's not a contradiction; that's a sequence.

First, no one was found worthy, then in that narrative context, the Lamb enters the scene, and he is actually worthy.

Consider the author's style

This is also consistent with John's narrative style, which makes his Gospel different from the Synoptics. Almost everything that happens in the Gospel of John merely sets the stage for Jesus to start talking and acting. Once Jesus shows up in any scene, all other characters seem to fade into the background and may not be referred to again. This is similar.

No one in heaven, earth, or below could open the seals. Then, enter Jesus. Translating "no one" as "no person" or "no man" would not alter that meaning whatsoever.

Excellent question! Many are curious about such things.

Answer 3

Agree with Young’s translation (and Nigel’s comment). Theologically it could be exegetically (and conclusively?) proven that the ‘one’ to open the seals had to be ‘a man’ (as in Kinsman redeemer) - but that really is not license to alter the translation.

It’s one of those cases where no harm is done, and nothing could be misconstrued from taking the liberty to translate ‘oudeis’ as ‘one [and then add] man. But nevertheless it can be argued that in translation there is no license to ‘add reasoning’.

oudeis - and not one, no one, none, no; [Strongs - section on original use in Greek]