“Exposed: Why the KJV ‘Which’ in Revelation Is Masterful — Internet Critic’s Webster Blunder”
https://rumble.com/v3rwk3p-which-king-james-bible-version-would-i-recommend.html
See Notes below on the description of the image Olof this johannygy
Johannyg writes:
Rev 1:8 KJV I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
. Is He a "which" or is He a "who"?
Noah's Dictionary 1828: "which" 1. A word called a relative or pronoun relative, because it relates to another word or thing, usually to some word that precedes it in the sentence. I call it also a substitute, as it supplies the place of a noun, or of an adjective, or of a sentence or clause. 1. The garden which I cultivate, that is , the garden, which garden I cultivate. 2. We are bound to obey all the divine commands, which we cannot do without divine aid. Here which represents the words, obey the divine commands. 3. You declared him to be innocent, which he is not. Here which stands for innocent. In the foregoing uses, which is not used in the masculine gender, that is, it does not in modern usage represent a person. 2. which is much used in asking questions, for the purpose of obtaining the designation of a particular person or thing by the answer, and in this use, it is of the masculine as well as of the neuter gender. There are two or three things to be done; which shall I do first? which man is it? 3. That which Take which you will, that is, take any one of the whole. "who" 1. who is a pronoun relative, always referring to persons. It forms whose in the genitive or possessive case, answering to the Latin Cujus, and whom in the objective or accusative case. who whose and whom, are in both numbers. Thus we say, the man or woman who was with us; the men or women who were with us; the men or women whom we saw. 2. Which of many. Are you satisfied who did the mischief? 3. It is much used in asking questions; as, who am I? who art thou? who is this? who are these? In this case, the purpose is to obtain the name or designation of the person or character. 4. It has sometimes a disjunctive sense. 5. Whose is of all genders. Whose book is this?
My response:
2 Timothy 2:15
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
King James Version (KJV)
Congratulations. You’ve just qualified as my new Poster Child to present a CASE STUDY in how to Study the King James Bible.
It is laughable you find yourself scholarly in your feeble clown attempt to debunk the King James Bible with a 19th-century dictionary while completely butchering basic English grammar.
You don’t understand anaphoric reference or antecedent at all. The pronoun “which” in Revelation 1:8 isn’t calling God a neuter “thing.” It’s referring back to the antecedents “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.”
For our grammar lesson for today there is much more grammar to study beyond the basics.
Let’s actually read the verse with the structure intact:
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty
Which” is anaphoric—it points backward to the titles and descriptions (Alpha/Omega, beginning/ending). Those are abstract designations, not the personal name or the person Himself.
For your level of intellect and education let’s even make this more simple:
The Pronoun "Which" refers to things. In the context of Revelation 1:8 KJV, things refers to the title and the description of Jesus Christ.
That’s why the relative pronoun “which” is grammatically correct and perfectly normal in older English (and even in modern formal English when referring to concepts, titles, or clauses).
Webster’s 1828 (which you half-quoted) itself acknowledges “which” can stand for clauses, adjectives, or things said—not just physical objects.
The Pronoun "WHICH" also means in the root sense "What kind" "Sort of" to distinguish quality, essence and category. This comes into focus for example in Revelation 4:8 KJV.
This extremely linguistically rich, stylistically deliberate English of 1600 — especially in Bible translation — allowed translators to preserve nuance, parallelism, and reverence that a purely identificatory “who” could not fully capture.
Modern English prioritizes clarity and personhood (“who”), but the older system, rooted in hwilc’s classificatory power, offered an additional layer of depth perfectly suited to describing the divine titles and eternal nature in Revelation.This is why the KJV’s choice feels majestic and precise rather than imprecise or erroneous — it draws on a deeper semantic tradition.
That’s why my native English speakers in my Spanish language class struggled with the richness of which vs who in Spanish. Cual vs Quen. You are experiencing the same problem in English and you would also have terrible difficulty in Spanish.
Spanish “cuál” vs. “quién” is an excellent parallel to the English “which” vs. “who” discussion in the Revelation context.
Quick Breakdown
Quién (who/whom) — Primarily for persons and identity.
Focuses on who someone is (name, specific individual).
Examples:
¿Quién es él? (“Who is he?” — asking for identity.)
¿Quién vino a la fiesta? (“Who came to the party?” — which person/people?)
Cuál / Cuáles (which / what kind) — For choice, selection, or quality.
Emphasizes “which one?” or “what kind/sort of?”
Examples:
¿Cuál es tu libro favorito? (“Which is your favorite book?” or “What kind of book is your favorite?”)
¿Cuál de ellos quieres? (“Which of them do you want?” — selecting from options.)
¿Cuál Dios es este? (“What kind of God is this?” — qualitative, about nature/attributes.)
Key Nuance & Why It’s Richer
Quién is straightforwardly personal/identificatory.
Cuál adds a qualitative/classificatory layer (“of what kind/sort?”). It derives from Latin qualis (“of what kind”), giving it depth for describing essence, category, or attributes.
This is why my native Spanish speakers in class struggled with English “which vs who.” And my native English speakers in the Spanish class struggled with “quien” and “cual”. In Spanish, cuál naturally handles the “what kind of” sense that older English “which” (from OE hwilc = “what kind”) also carried — especially useful after titles or when qualifying nature (e.g., “what kind of eternal Lord?”).st
The KJV’s anaphoric “which” (pointing to titles) feels precise rather than odd. It mirrors the Greek’s preference for descriptive, attribute-focused expressions when naming God.
Which descends from Old English hwilc (“what kind/sort of”). Far from reducing God to a neuter “thing,” this construction adds a qualitative, classificatory layer. It does not merely ask “who?” (identity/person) but “what kind of eternal, almighty being?” — thereby enriching the description of divine personhood with essence, category, and attribute.
In Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 (KJV), the pronoun “which” functions as an anaphoric reference pointing backward to the immediate antecedent titles and descriptions rather than directly to the divine Person in a simple identificatory way.In 1:8 the antecedent is the string of majestic titles: “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.” In 4:8 it is the compound divine title “Lord God Almighty.”
The repeated relative clauses (“which is, and which was, and which is to come”) therefore classify and qualify those titles. This is grammatically standard in Early Modern English and aligns with the historical semantics of “which,” which descends from Old English hwilc (“what kind/sort of”).Far from reducing God to a neuter “thing,” this construction adds a qualitative, classificatory layer.
It does not merely ask “who?” (identity/person) but “what kind of eternal, almighty being?” — thereby enriching the description of divine personhood with essence, category, and attribute. The titles themselves are abstract and descriptive; “which” appropriately refers to them while the surrounding personal language (“saith the Lord,” “the Almighty”) preserves full personhood.This choice reflects the richer pronoun distinctions available in 17th-century English and suits the solemn, hymnic, and theological style of Revelation.
It simultaneously honors the antecedent titles and deepens the portrayal of the One who bears them as the eternal, sovereign kind of God.
See your own quote: “which represents the words, obey the divine commands” or “which stands for innocent.” Exactly. Here it’s standing for the titles and attributes just declared. It’s not a denial that God is a “who.” The very next words are “saith the Lord” and “the Almighty”—personal titles all the way.
English Bible translators (Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, etc.) routinely used “which” this way for divine titles and attributes without it being some heretical “God is an it” claim. “Who” would have been awkward or less precise right after a string of abstract titles.
Corrupted Modern versions often render it “who is, and who was, and who is to come” for smoother reading to contemporary ears, but this rendering is INFERIOR and misses the mark. In short it is a mockery to God.
You’re doing the classic internet-apologist move: seize on archaic pronoun usage, ignore how relative pronouns actually work (they agree with their antecedent, not always the ultimate referent), and act like you’ve exposed some deep doctrinal flaw.
You haven’t. You’ve exposed that you don’t understand grammar beyond copy-pasting dictionary entries.
God is repeatedly called “He,” “Him,” “the Lord,” “the Almighty,” etc., throughout the same book and the whole Bible.
No serious reader thinks Revelation 1:8 suddenly turns the eternal personal God into an impersonal “which.”
The pronoun follows the immediate antecedent (“Alpha and Omega… the beginning and the ending”), which is standard English usage then and now.
Next time try parsing the actual sentence instead of playing pronoun police to feel smart. You’re not exposing the KJV translators—you’re embarrassing yourself.
I’m also concerned by the Kabbalah icon on your account. This lets us know exactly your end game.
The image is a piece of religious iconography titled "Hebrew Name of Yahweh-Adam Kadmon 183" by artist William Hart McNichols. [1, 2]
The symbol represents a combination of Jewish mysticism and biblical concepts:
Tetragrammaton (YHVH): The flaming stick figure is actually composed of the four Hebrew letters (Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey) that spell the name of God in the Hebrew Bible. [1, 2]
Made in His Image: This specific representation is often used to illustrate the verse Genesis 1:26, signifying that humans are "made in His image" by literally forming a human figure out of the divine name. [1]
Adam Kadmon: In Kabbalah, "Adam Kadmon" refers to the "Primordial Man," a spiritual archetype representing the first of the four worlds of creation. [1, 2]
The Burning Bush: The fire surrounding the figure relates to the Shekinah, the radiating presence of God, similar to the light Moses encountered at the burning bush or the radiance that later illuminated his face. [1, 2]
While it may superficially resemble other icons, such as the Burning Man festival's wooden effigy (which symbolizes rebirth or community) or the Wicker Man (a pagan harvest ritual symbol), this specific artwork is explicitly a Christian and Jewish mystical icon. [1, 2, 3]
Additional Information:
Quick Breakdown of Revelation 1:8 (KJV)
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”
The relative pronoun “which” (repeated) has its antecedent in the preceding titles/descriptions: “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.” These are abstract designations, titles, or concepts—not a direct personal reference to the speaker in that clause.
This is classic anaphoric reference (pointing backward). In older English, “which” commonly referred to things, ideas, clauses, titles, or attributes—even when describing God or people indirectly. Webster’s 1828 dictionary (which the critic quoted) actually supports this: “which” can stand for “the words,” “innocent,” or a whole clause/idea.
webstersdictionary1828.com
The structure is: [Titles] ... which [refers back to those titles] is/was/is to come.This avoids awkwardness right after a string of predicate nominatives/titles. “Who” would have been possible but less precise in that syntactic spot in 17th-century English.
Historical Context in Bible Translations
This rendering isn’t unique or erroneous to the KJV. Earlier English Bibles used similar language:
Tyndale (1526): “...sayth the Lorde almyghty which is and which was and which is to come.”
Coverdale (1535) and Bishops’ (1568) follow the same pattern.
truthseeker.church
The underlying Greek uses a construction with the article + participle/verb forms (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος), which is somewhat solemn/solemn and can tolerate flexible pronouns in translation. The KJV translators (and predecessors) chose “which” for fidelity to the structure and older English idiom. Modern corrupted versions often smooth it to “who” for contemporary readability, but degrades and certainly does NOT make itself a correction of heresy.
You claim (using Webster to claim “which” makes God a “thing/neuter”) misses basic grammar: pronouns agree with their antecedents, not always the ultimate referent. Here, the antecedent is the titles, which are neuter/abstract in English. No one in the KJV era (or serious scholarship) reads this as denying God’s personhood.
The verse immediately frames it with personal titles: “saith the Lord... the Almighty.”This is a common gotcha attempt against the KJV that falls flat once you parse the sentence properly. Similar constructions appear elsewhere in Revelation (e.g., 1:4, 4:8).
Bottom Line
This is a solid case study in reading the KJV on its own terms (Early Modern English grammar + context) rather than importing 21st-century expectations.
If you’re studying the verse devotionally, both “which” and “who” convey the eternal nature of God (past, present, future) just fine. The KJV’s choice is defensible and historically consistent.
Here are the exact renderings of Revelation 1:8 in the requested modern translations (standard editions):
ESV (English Standard Version)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
NIV (New International Version)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
NASB (New American Standard Bible – 1995 or 2020 update)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
NKJV (New King James Version)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Key Differences from KJV
KJV: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”
ANAPHORIC REFERENCES REFER BACK TO THE ANTECEDENT NOUN WHICH IS THE TITLE AND DESCRIPTION
Antecedent rule: Relative pronouns agree in number/gender with their immediate antecedent, not necessarily the ultimate referent (God/Jesus). Here the antecedent is a string of abstract titles (neuter/abstract in English grammar).
Example from everyday English: “He is the CEO and founder, which roles require great responsibility.” → “which” refers to the roles, even though a person holds them.Webster’s 1828 (the critic’s own source) explicitly allows “which” for clauses, attributes, or things said — exactly as in the verse. The critic cherry-picked the “does not represent a person” part while ignoring the fuller entry on its use for adjectives, commands, or descriptions.
This pattern appears throughout older English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops’, KJV). It’s not a mistake or downgrade of God’s personhood — it’s precise syntax following the structure of the Greek participles.
Modern Versions vs. KJV (for context)
As shown earlier, modern translations shift to “who” for natural contemporary flow and often read “Lord God.” However, the KJV’s “which” preserves a tighter link to the titles as the antecedent. Your objection is a classic surface-level attack: take an archaic pronoun, ignore sentence structure and historical usage, and claim doctrinal error. It doesn’t hold under basic grammatical parsing.
Additional Real-World Examples of Similar Usage
“Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, which truths we must follow.”
“God is our Rock and Fortress, which metaphors comfort us in trouble.”
In each case, “which” refers to the descriptive titles, not turning the person into a “thing.”Bottom line: The KJV is grammatically correct here. The pronoun follows standard rules of anaphora. No heresy, no error — just older English doing what it does best: precise, majestic expression. Greek Grammar of Revelation 1:8 (with focus on the key phrase that becomes “which/who is, and which/who was, and which/who is to come” in English).
This construction appears in similar form in Revelation 1:4 and 4:8, always describing God’s eternal, timeless existence (past, present, and future).
Connection to the English KJV “which”
The KJV translators rendered the entire title ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος as “which is, and which was, and which is to come.”This is a faithful, somewhat archaic rendering that:
Preserves the solemn, title-like quality.
Treats the phrase as referring back to the preceding titles/descriptions (“Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending”) — exactly the anaphoric reference we discussed earlier.
Uses “which” (common in older English for abstract titles, attributes, or clauses) rather than forcing “who” right after the string of predicate titles.
Summary
The Greek is deliberately majestic and formulaic. It uses substantivized participles and a finite verb (ἦν) to create a powerful declaration of God’s eternal being. There is no relative pronoun ὅς in the Greek — the English “which/who” is interpretive. The KJV’s “which” aligns well with treating the phrase as a descriptive title/appositive referring back to the Alpha/Omega/beginning/end titles.This construction beautifully reinforces the verse’s theme: the speaker is the eternal, sovereign Almighty who encompasses all time.Both use the same unusual Greek construction:
Articular forms (ὁ + verb) turn the verbs into substantive titles (“the One who is / was / is coming”).
No standard relative pronoun (ὅς) — it’s a fixed, solemn formula.
The phrase functions appositionally (as an explanatory title added to the main name).
In Rev 1:8:
The speaker self-identifies with titles first: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.”
Then: “says the Lord, [eternal title], the Almighty.”
The eternal phrase (“which is...”) directly elaborates the titles (Alpha/Omega = first/last, beginning/end). This is why the KJV’s “which” fits so naturally — it refers back to those abstract designations (anaphoric reference to the titles/descriptions, exactly as we discussed earlier).
In Rev 4:8:
The living creatures cry: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, [eternal title].”
Here the eternal phrase directly modifies “Lord God Almighty” — a personal divine name.
The focus is on worship of the Person who holds that majesty.
Why Rev 1:8 Emphasizes “the Title” and 4:8 Points to the “Person of Majesty”
Revelation 1:8 introduces the book with a self-declaration. It piles on descriptive titles (Alpha/Omega, beginning/ending) and then attaches the eternal formula as further elaboration of those titles. It functions like a majestic name card or formal introduction: “I am [these grand titles], the Eternal One, the Almighty.” The grammar (titles first, then the “which/who” phrase) highlights the attributes and sovereignty.
Revelation 4:8 is pure celestial worship. The trisagion (“Holy, holy, holy” — echoing Isaiah 6) + “Lord God Almighty” + the eternal formula is a direct hymn to the Person on the throne. It denotes the living, personal God who is worthy of unceasing praise. The order (personal names first, then the eternal title) emphasizes who He is rather than defining new titles.
In short:
1:8 = Title-focused self-revelation (what He is called / what He encompasses).
4:8 = Person-focused adoration (worship directed to Him who bears that majesty).
The KJV’s consistent use of “which” in both places maintains the solemn, title-like feel of the Greek articular construction.
In the KJV, Revelation 4:8 reads:
“And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.”
The pronoun “which” refers to “Lord God Almighty” (a personal divine title/name). Modern translations almost always render it “who was, and is, and is to come” for contemporary naturalness. The KJV’s choice of “which” is not an error — it reflects the flexible grammar of Early Modern English (roughly 1500–1700), the period when the KJV was translated.
Greek Background (No Relative Pronoun in the Original)
The underlying Greek (both Textus Receptus and critical texts) does not use a relative pronoun like ὅς (“who/which”). Instead, it uses a fixed, solemn substantivized verbal construction:
Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
ὁ ἦν = “the [one who] was” (articular imperfect indicative of εἰμί)
ὁ ὢν = “the [one] being / who is” (articular present participle)
ὁ ἐρχόμενος = “the [one] coming / who is to come” (articular present participle)
This is the same majestic formula seen in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 11:17, and 16:5. It functions as an appositive title or descriptive expansion of “Lord God Almighty.” The English translators had to choose how to render this formal, title-like phrase.
Deep Study of “Which” as a Relative Pronoun in Early Modern English (KJV Context)
In modern standard English, we follow a relatively strict rule:
Who/whom/whose → persons (and sometimes pets)
Which → things, animals, or concepts (and clauses)
That → either (especially in restrictive clauses)
This distinction became more rigid in the 18th century onward, driven by prescriptive grammarians like Robert Lowth. However, in Early Modern English (the language of Shakespeare, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, and the KJV translators), the rules were much more fluid.Key historical facts:
“Which” was commonly used for human antecedents (persons) throughout the 1500s–1600s, especially in formal, literary, biblical, or solemn writing.
“Who” was also used for persons but was not yet the near-exclusive choice it became later.
The choice often depended on style, rhythm, formality, and syntactic position rather than a hard “person vs. thing” rule.
The KJV translators (and their predecessors like Tyndale) deliberately preserved a more traditional, elevated style. They were not bound by later 18th–19th century prescriptive grammar.
Evidence from the KJV itself (many examples exist):
Genesis 13:5 — “And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.”
Acts 21:39 — “I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus...”
Other frequent patterns: “he which,” “they which,” “a man which,” etc., referring to people.
Corpus research on the KJV shows “human which” (referring to persons) occurs at a notably high rate — roughly 169 occurrences per 100,000 words, actually outnumbering “human who” in the data examined (around 77 per 100,000). This confirms that “which” for persons was a normal, accepted feature of the KJV’s English.
omu.repo.nii.ac.jp
Similar usage appears in other Early Modern texts (Shakespeare, sermons, etc.), though frequency varied by author and genre. By the early 1700s, usage of “which” for humans began declining sharply in formal prose as “who” became preferred for animacy (personhood).
Why “Which” in Revelation 4:8 Specifically?
Several factors align perfectly with 17th-century norms:
Antecedent is a majestic title/name: “Lord God Almighty” is not a simple personal name like “John.” It is a compound divine title. In older English, titles and formal designations often took “which” even when referring to persons (parallel to how abstract titles are handled in Rev 1:8).
Solemn, liturgical, worship context: The verse records the unceasing heavenly worship cry. The entire phrase has a hymnic, majestic, almost chant-like quality. “Which” contributes to that elevated, archaic solemnity (much like the retention of “thou/thee” for God).
Consistency across Revelation: The KJV uses “which” uniformly for this same eternal formula:
Rev 1:4 — “him which is, and which was, and which is to come”
Rev 1:8 — “the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come”
Rev 4:8 — “Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come”
Rev 11:17 — similar pattern
This creates stylistic and theological unity. Changing to “who” in one place would break the pattern.
Syntactic position and appositive feel: The clause “which was, and is, and is to come” functions almost like an explanatory appositive or further descriptor of the divine name, rather than a tightly restrictive relative clause. Older English allowed “which” more readily in such descriptive or non-restrictive roles.
The OED entry on “which” (as a relative/interrogative pronoun) directly highlights the broader historical usage that modern prescriptive dictionaries and even Webster’s 1828 often simplify or downplay.
Etymology of “Which”
The word “which” comes from:
Old English: hwilc, hwælc, huelc, hwalc (etc.) — meaning “which, of what kind/sort/form.”
Proto-Germanic: hwa-līkaz (“of what form/likeness” or “what-like”).
From hwa- (the interrogative/indefinite stem “who/what”) + -līkaz (“like, form, body, appearance” — the same root as modern “like” in the sense of “resembling”).
The OED records examples of “which” referring to people from Old/Middle English onward, continuing into Early Modern English (the KJV era).
“Which” often carried a sense of “of what kind” even when applied to persons or titles.
One notable observation echoed in sources quoting the OED/traditional dictionaries: 18th-century lexicographer Samuel Johnson (in his Dictionary) explicitly stated that “which” formerly was used for “who” and related to persons. Example from Johnson: references to “the Almighty, which giveth wisdom…” (using “which” for God).
This usage “confounds” many modern dictionaries because:
Modern standard English (post-18th/19th century prescriptive grammar) strongly prefers “who/whom/whose” for persons and reserves “which” primarily for things, animals, or clauses.
Webster’s 1828 (which you referenced earlier) already leans toward more restrictive modern-ish rules in its pronoun entry, emphasizing “which” for things/clauses while noting limited personal uses — but it doesn’t fully capture the breadth shown in OED historical citations.
The OED’s strength (its “epistemology” in the broad sense of how we know language history) is its descriptive, evidence-based approach:
It is built on millions of dated citations from real texts across 1,000+ years.
It shows actual usage evolving over time rather than imposing 19th–21st century rules retroactively.
This reveals that the KJV’s “which” in Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 (attached to titles like “Alpha and Omega” or “Lord God Almighty”) was perfectly normal in 17th-century formal/biblical English.
Why This Matters for Your KJV Discussion
In Revelation 4:8 (“Lord God Almighty, which was...”), the antecedent is a majestic compound title. In older English, “which” was especially comfortable after such formal designations or when the clause had a solemn, descriptive/appositive feel. The OED’s historical record supports this as legitimate usage of the period — not a grammatical flaw.In short: The OED reveals a richer, more flexible history of “which” than many shorter or more prescriptive dictionaries (including Webster’s 1828 in its summarized form) present.
It was never exclusively a “thing” pronoun in earlier English; its etymological core (“what kind”) allowed broad application, including to persons and divine titles.If you have access to the full OED online, look under the main entry for which, pron. (and adj.), particularly the relative pronoun senses and the etymology section. It has dozens of historical citations that illustrate the point beautifully.
OED citations and historical usage show a clear evolution: “which” was once broadly used for persons (including in titles), while “who” gradually became the preferred personal relative pronoun.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the gold standard for historical English. It provides dated citations showing actual usage over time, rather than modern prescriptive rules. Here is a comparison focused on their development as relative pronouns, with emphasis on references to persons/titles (the key context for your Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 discussion).
Etymological and Early Background (Shared Roots)
Both trace to Old English interrogative/indefinite pronouns.
“Which”: From OE hwilc/hwælc (“what kind/sort of”).
“Who”: From OE hwā (“who/what” — the base interrogative for persons).
In Old English, true relative pronouns were limited (often þe or demonstratives like se). The modern wh- relatives (who, which) developed more fully in Middle English under French/Latin influence.
OED-Style Citations and Usage Patterns
“Which” as Relative Pronoun (Broader, Earlier Flexibility):
The OED records “which” used for persons, things, and clauses from Middle English onward.
It was especially common after titles, collective nouns, or formal designations — exactly the pattern in the KJV (“Lord God Almighty, which...” or “Alpha and Omega... which...”).
Why This “Confounds” Webster’s 1828 and Modern Dictionaries
Webster’s 1828: Emphasizes “which” mainly for things/clauses (aligning with emerging 19th-century norms) but acknowledges some personal uses. It is transitional — more restrictive than full OED historical breadth.
Modern dictionaries (e.g., Merriam-Webster, Oxford Learner’s): Present the standardized rule (“who” for people, “which” for things) as near-absolute, often labeling older personal “which” as archaic or rare.
The OED’s strength is its descriptive epistemology: It records what was actually written across centuries with thousands of citations, revealing that the KJV’s “which” in Revelation (attached to divine titles) was standard Early Modern English — not an anomaly.
In Revelation 4:8 (“Lord God Almighty, which was...”), the OED historical record supports “which” as a natural choice for the majestic title, maintaining the solemn, formulaic style of the eternal name across the book.This flexibility is why the KJV feels “majestic” — it draws on older, richer pronoun usage that later English narrowed.
Investigate Tyndale Bible pronouns
“Which”: From OE hwilc/hwælc (“what kind/sort of”).
The etymology and semantics of “which” from Old English hwilc / hwælc (“what kind/sort of”) reveal a profound classificatory depth that “who” largely lacks. This richness was especially valued in the language of 1600 (Early Modern English, the KJV era), where precise distinctions in kind, quality, essence, and category mattered deeply for theology, literature, and rhetoric.
Etymology: From “What-Like / Of What Form or Kind”
Old English: hwilc, hwælc, huelc, hwalc (and variants). It functioned as both interrogative and indefinite pronoun/adjective.
Proto-Germanic root: hwa-līkaz (“of what form/likeness” or “what-like”).
hwa- (the interrogative/indefinite stem “who/what” — same root as modern “who” and “what”).
-līkaz (“like, form, body, appearance” — cognate with modern “like” in the sense of resemblance or kind; also related to “lich” in “lich-gate” or bodily form).
Core meaning: Not simply “which one?” but “of what kind, sort, quality, or form?” — a question of category or essence.
This is visible in early uses:
Interrogative: “Hwilc man eart þū?” (“What kind of man are you?” — not just identity, but nature/character).
Indefinite/relative development: It carried this qualitative sense when it evolved into a relative pronoun in Middle English.
Cognates and parallels appear in other Germanic languages (e.g., Old High German hwelīh). The “-like” element gives it an inherent classificatory power — it sorts, qualifies, and distinguishes types rather than merely pointing to an individual.
Semantic Depth: “What Kind/Sort Of” vs. Pure Identity (“Who”)
“Which” asks about kind, sort, quality, or attribute. It classifies or qualifies the antecedent. It engages with essence, category, or nature.
Example feel: “What kind of Lord is this?” or “Of what sort is this Almighty?”
This makes it ideal for titles, descriptions, and theological statements — it doesn’t just identify who but characterizes what kind of being or attribute is involved.
“Who” (from OE hwā) primarily concerns identity or personhood (“which person?”). It is more referential and individual-focused.
In older English, these were not interchangeable in nuance:
“Who” points to the person.
“Which” layers on what sort of person or what quality they embody.
This distinction allowed writers and translators to convey deeper philosophical and theological precision. In a language still carrying remnants of inflection and rich stylistic options, such choices mattered.
Why the Richness of 1600s English Demanded This Precision
Early Modern English (roughly 1500–1700, peaking around the KJV in 1611) was a period of linguistic abundance and conscious stylistic control:
Vocabulary exploded (via Renaissance, printing, exploration, and Bible translation).
Pronoun systems offered choices: thou/you, which/who/that, singular/plural distinctions preserved for reverence or clarity.
Biblical and literary English prized majesty, parallelism, and layered meaning. Translators (following Tyndale, Geneva Bible, etc.) aimed for dignity and exactness when rendering Hebrew/Greek concepts of divine nature, attributes, and titles.
Theology demanded nuance: Describing God wasn’t just “who He is” (identity) but “what kind of God” — eternal, almighty, of a specific sovereign sort.
In this environment:
“Which” after titles like “Alpha and Omega,” “the beginning and the ending,” or “Lord God Almighty” classifies the nature or category of the divine claim. It fits the solemn, formulaic style of worship and self-revelation (echoing Exodus 3:14’s “I AM”).
Using “which” preserved a sense of qualitative reverence — not reducing the divine to mere personhood but highlighting the kind of eternal, all-ruling being.
Examples from the KJV Era Illustrating the Depth
Revelation 1:8 / 4:8: “I am Alpha and Omega... saith the Lord, which is, and which was...” or “Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.”
Here “which” doesn’t just say “who exists eternally” — it classifies the sort of Lord: the eternal kind, the one whose very nature spans all time as the Alpha/Omega title declares.
Shakespeare and contemporaries often used “which” for persons in formal or descriptive contexts, retaining the qualitative nuance.
Earlier: OE/ME examples frequently pair hwilc with descriptions of character or type (“what kind of man must he be...”).
This usage feels “deeper” because it engages the mind with essence and category rather than bare reference. In theological language, it helps convey that God is not just a person but of a certain sovereign, eternal sort — aligning with the majestic, non-reductive style of Scripture.
Summary: Precision Through Classification
The root sense “what kind/sort of” made “which” a tool for distinguishing qualities, essences, and categories. In the linguistically rich, stylistically deliberate English of 1600 — especially in Bible translation — this allowed translators to preserve nuance, parallelism, and reverence that a purely identificatory “who” could not fully capture.Modern English prioritizes clarity and personhood (“who”), but the older system, rooted in hwilc’s classificatory power, offered an additional layer of depth perfectly suited to describing the divine titles and eternal nature in Revelation.This is why the KJV’s choice feels majestic and precise rather than imprecise or erroneous — it draws on a deeper semantic tradition.
Comments
Post a Comment