Revelation 15:2

As an addition, as I could not edit the former text:
M. Psellus, In E. Nic. 549.6: “δυνατὸν δὲ αὐτοὺς νικῆσαι οὐκ ἐκ προφανοῦς πο-
λέμου”. “it is possible now that they win not out of a forseen battle”.
Same author (Oratoria min. 2.37: ” ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ μάχεσθαι νικᾶν τε καὶ εἰρήνην ἐκ πολέμου ποιεῖν”. “But to win due to being fought and even gain peace out of war”.

Please feel free to correct my English-Greek, as I’m neither English nor Greek  P.

Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — June 20th, 2017, 4:42 am


As an addition, as I could not edit the former text:
M. Psellus, In E. Nic. 549.6: “δυνατὸν δὲ αὐτοὺς νικῆσαι οὐκ ἐκ προφανοῦς πο-
λέμου”. “it is possible now that they win not out of a forseen battle”.
Same author (Oratoria min. 2.37: ” ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ μάχεσθαι νικᾶν τε καὶ εἰρήνην ἐκ πολέμου ποιεῖν”. “But to win due to being fought and even gain peace out of war”.

Please feel free to correct my English-Greek, as I’m neither English nor Greek  P.

Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — June 20th, 2017, 4:42 am


Dear all,

thank you for all your help so far – the discussion is of high value for me, as I feel not able to get along with that alone. Each contribution was combined with new insights for me.
Stirling, I would provide a translation of Perseus for the quote of Thyc., which fits very good in this debate:

yet it is the part of valiant men, when they receive injury, to pass from peace into war, and after success, from war to come again to composition, and neither to swell with the good success of war nor to suffer injury through pleasure taken in the ease of peace.

The original text:

ἀνδρῶν γὰρ σωφρόνων μέν ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ἀδικοῖντο, ἡσυχάζειν, ἀγα-
θῶν δὲ ἀδικουμένους ἐκ μὲν εἰρήνης πολεμεῖν, εὖ δὲ παρασχὸν ἐκ πολέμου πάλιν ξυμβῆναι, καὶ μήτε τῇ κατὰ πόλεμον εὐτυχίᾳ ἐπαίρεσθαι μήτε τῷ ἡσύχῳ τῆς εἰρήνης ἡδόμενον ἀδικεῖσθαι.

This is the nearest parallel passage and, of course, I`ve overlooked that – how did the author find it without the TLG ? Amazing. At least a good explanation and matrix for the ἐκ in Rev 15,2. If time permits I search on this pattern in the TLG.
Jonathan wrote:

OK, now I know that you understand adjuncts ;-> Not everyone does, I’m sorry if it felt like I was talking down to you.

Everything is no problem – the good thing – even we Germans have adjuncts .

Does he give examples where νικάω ἐκ means sich befreien von / free oneself from?

That is what I miss as well, but that would not be part of a short commentary on the Greek text, as it is one book on the whole NT. As for me – I always need to have one clear parallel to back a statement up, so the above quote of Thyc. is something I can get along with. You and other contributors here agreed already that a substitution of something like “coming from a war as winners” could be plausible. I think that is the direction of the parallel in Thyc. – “Free yourself from” is prima vista a good idea, but needs to be backed up at least by one example – the “come from a war” proposal is one quote in front – maybe this could win the race at the end – at least for me.

Yours Peter

Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — June 20th, 2017, 1:04 am


Dear all,

thank you for all your help so far – the discussion is of high value for me, as I feel not able to get along with that alone. Each contribution was combined with new insights for me.
Stirling, I would provide a translation of Perseus for the quote of Thyc., which fits very good in this debate:

yet it is the part of valiant men, when they receive injury, to pass from peace into war, and after success, from war to come again to composition, and neither to swell with the good success of war nor to suffer injury through pleasure taken in the ease of peace.

The original text:

ἀνδρῶν γὰρ σωφρόνων μέν ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ἀδικοῖντο, ἡσυχάζειν, ἀγα-
θῶν δὲ ἀδικουμένους ἐκ μὲν εἰρήνης πολεμεῖν, εὖ δὲ παρασχὸν ἐκ πολέμου πάλιν ξυμβῆναι, καὶ μήτε τῇ κατὰ πόλεμον εὐτυχίᾳ ἐπαίρεσθαι μήτε τῷ ἡσύχῳ τῆς εἰρήνης ἡδόμενον ἀδικεῖσθαι.

This is the nearest parallel passage and, of course, I`ve overlooked that – how did the author find it without the TLG ? Amazing. At least a good explanation and matrix for the ἐκ in Rev 15,2. If time permits I search on this pattern in the TLG.
Jonathan wrote:

OK, now I know that you understand adjuncts ;-> Not everyone does, I’m sorry if it felt like I was talking down to you.

Everything is no problem – the good thing – even we Germans have adjuncts :-).

Does he give examples where νικάω ἐκ means sich befreien von / free oneself from?

That is what I miss as well, but that would not be part of a short commentary on the Greek text, as it is one book on the whole NT. As for me – I always need to have one clear parallel to back a statement up, so the above quote of Thyc. is something I can get along with. You and other contributors here agreed already that a substitution of something like “coming from a war as winners” could be plausible. I think that is the direction of the parallel in Thyc. – “Free yourself from” is prima vista a good idea, but needs to be backed up at least by one example – the “come from a war” proposal is one quote in front – maybe this could win the race at the end – at least for me.

Yours Peter

Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — June 20th, 2017, 1:04 am


 

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

June 19th, 2017, 11:20 am

Of course an adjunct is not part of the main clause predicate or depends syntactically on it, but stands by itself. You might refer to me writing “connected” – this I meant in the sense of connected to the preposition ἐκ and not to the predicate. Sorry if that could not be transferred in the sense I meant. Of course adjuncts without a verbal idea exist (as your example shows), but I was referring to a adverbial adjunct where a verbal component is to be substituted

OK, now I know that you understand adjuncts ;-> Not everyone does, I’m sorry if it felt like I was talking down to you.

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

June 19th, 2017, 11:20 am

– in that way I also understand the paraphrase of Swetes quote where the paraphrase goes like this: “come victorious from the beast” – I would have said, “come victorious from the battle with these three Counter Elements” or “come forth as winner from the battle with these three enemies”. This is at least an interesting way of interpreting the ἐκ. Or they came out of the battle against these elements as winners. So maybe a substitution of this kind is plausible.

Sure, that makes sense. Something like this:

v εἶδον
o

s τοὺς
v.part νικῶντας
+ ἐκ τοῦ θηρίου
+ καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ
+ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

o2

v ἑστῶτας
+ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

June 19th, 2017, 11:20 am

The suggestion of Prof. H. v. Siebenthal :”νικάω ἐκ sich durch den Sieg befreien von” Von Siebenthal, H., & Haubeck, W. (2007). Matthäus bis Offenbarung (2., durchgesehene Auflage, S. 1293). Giessen; Basel: Brunnen Verlag.
In English: “νικάω ἐκ: to be freed from these by victory”. Could be rendered: “Those, who freed themselves from the beast ctl.” (is that straight English?). Thanks for further comments. Peter

Does he give examples where νικάω ἐκ means sich befreien von / free oneself from?

Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 19th, 2017, 3:36 pm


Rev. 15:2 Καὶ εἶδον ὡς θάλασσαν ὑαλίνην μεμιγμένην πυρὶ καὶ τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ θηρίου καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ ἑστῶτας ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν ὑαλίνην ἔχοντας κιθάρας τοῦ θεοῦ.

… τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ …

τοὺς νικῶντας a “pure” substantive; Alford “simple designation” with a verb of travel, motion or arrival left out because it isn’t necessary. The victorious are seen as having just arrived from a battle from which they have emerged as winners. John doesn’t need to spell this out with an explicit finite verb.

Beckwith (p 674) “coming off victorious from”
Alford, vol 4, p694
and the conquerors (the pres. part. has the force of simple designation, as so often in this book) of (see ref.: they have come victorious out of the strife: cf. Thuc. i. 120, ἀγαθῶν δέ, ἀδικουμένους ἐκ μὲν εἰρήνης πολεμεῖν, εὖ δὲ παρασχόν, ἐκ πολέμου πὰλιν ξυμβῆναι)

David Aune (Rev. WBC, vol2 pp 871-872) has a detailed discussion of the problem and does not come out in favor of the analysis provided above. Aune complains that the idiom isn’t found elsewhere. I find this form of argument very unpersuasive in regard to the Apocalypse of John. There are all sorts of idioms not found elsewhere.

Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — June 19th, 2017, 3:35 pm


 

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

June 19th, 2017, 11:20 am

Of course an adjunct is not part of the main clause predicate or depends syntactically on it, but stands by itself. You might refer to me writing “connected” – this I meant in the sense of connected to the preposition ἐκ and not to the predicate. Sorry if that could not be transferred in the sense I meant. Of course adjuncts without a verbal idea exist (as your example shows), but I was referring to a adverbial adjunct where a verbal component is to be substituted

OK, now I know that you understand adjuncts ;-> Not everyone does, I’m sorry if it felt like I was talking down to you.

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

June 19th, 2017, 11:20 am

– in that way I also understand the paraphrase of Swetes quote where the paraphrase goes like this: “come victorious from the beast” – I would have said, “come victorious from the battle with these three Counter Elements” or “come forth as winner from the battle with these three enemies”. This is at least an interesting way of interpreting the ἐκ. Or they came out of the battle against these elements as winners. So maybe a substitution of this kind is plausible.

Sure, that makes sense. Something like this:

v εἶδον
o

s τοὺς
v.part νικῶντας
+ ἐκ τοῦ θηρίου
+ καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ
+ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

o2

v ἑστῶτας
+ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

June 19th, 2017, 11:20 am

The suggestion of Prof. H. v. Siebenthal :”νικάω ἐκ sich durch den Sieg befreien von” Von Siebenthal, H., & Haubeck, W. (2007). Matthäus bis Offenbarung (2., durchgesehene Auflage, S. 1293). Giessen; Basel: Brunnen Verlag.
In English: “νικάω ἐκ: to be freed from these by victory”. Could be rendered: “Those, who freed themselves from the beast ctl.” (is that straight English?). Thanks for further comments. Peter

Does he give examples where νικάω ἐκ means sich befreien von / free oneself from?

Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 19th, 2017, 3:36 pm


Rev. 15:2 Καὶ εἶδον ὡς θάλασσαν ὑαλίνην μεμιγμένην πυρὶ καὶ τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ θηρίου καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ ἑστῶτας ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν ὑαλίνην ἔχοντας κιθάρας τοῦ θεοῦ.

… τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ …

τοὺς νικῶντας a “pure” substantive; Alford “simple designation” with a verb of travel, motion or arrival left out because it isn’t necessary. The victorious are seen as having just arrived from a battle from which they have emerged as winners. John doesn’t need to spell this out with an explicit finite verb.

Beckwith (p 674) “coming off victorious from”
Alford, vol 4, p694
and the conquerors (the pres. part. has the force of simple designation, as so often in this book) of (see ref.: they have come victorious out of the strife: cf. Thuc. i. 120, ἀγαθῶν δέ, ἀδικουμένους ἐκ μὲν εἰρήνης πολεμεῖν, εὖ δὲ παρασχόν, ἐκ πολέμου πὰλιν ξυμβῆναι)

David Aune (Rev. WBC, vol2 pp 871-872) has a detailed discussion of the problem and does not come out in favor of the analysis provided above. Aune complains that the idiom isn’t found elsewhere. I find this form of argument very unpersuasive in regard to the Apocalypse of John. There are all sorts of idioms not found elsewhere.

Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — June 19th, 2017, 3:35 pm


Dear Jonathan,

That’s not really what an adjunct is. An adjunct is not an argument of the verb, it is not even a predicate. Consider these examples:
s I
v read
o
a writing
+ on chocolate milk

Of course an adjunct is not part of the main clause predicate or depends syntactically on it, but stands by itself. You might refer to me writing “connected” – this I meant in the sense of connected to the preposition ἐκ and not to the predicate. Sorry if that could not be transferred in the sense I meant. Of course adjuncts without a verbal idea exist (as your example shows), but I was referring to a adverbial adjunct where a verbal component is to be substituted – in that way I also understand the paraphrase of Swetes quote where the paraphrase goes like this: “come victorious from the beast” – I would have said, “come victorious from the battle with these three Counter Elements” or “come forth as winner from the battle with these three enemies”. This is at least an interesting way of interpreting the ἐκ. Or they came out of the battle against these elements as winners. So maybe a substitution of this kind is plausible. The suggestion of Prof. H. v. Siebenthal :”νικάω ἐκ sich durch den Sieg befreien von” Von Siebenthal, H., & Haubeck, W. (2007). Matthäus bis Offenbarung (2., durchgesehene Auflage, S. 1293). Giessen; Basel: Brunnen Verlag.
In English: “νικάω ἐκ: to be freed from these by victory”. Could be rendered: “Those, who freed themselves from the beast ctl.” (is that straight English?). Thanks for further comments. Peter

Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — June 19th, 2017, 11:20 am


Dear Jonathan,

That’s not really what an adjunct is. An adjunct is not an argument of the verb, it is not even a predicate. Consider these examples:
s I
v read
o
a writing
+ on chocolate milk

Of course an adjunct is not part of the main clause predicate or depends syntactically on it, but stands by itself. You might refer to me writing “connected” – this I meant in the sense of connected to the preposition ἐκ and not to the predicate. Sorry if that could not be transferred in the sense I meant. Of course adjuncts without a verbal idea exist (as your example shows), but I was referring to a adverbial adjunct where a verbal component is to be substituted – in that way I also understand the paraphrase of Swetes quote where the paraphrase goes like this: “come victorious from the beast” – I would have said, “come victorious from the battle with these three Counter Elements” or “come forth as winner from the battle with these three enemies”. This is at least an interesting way of interpreting the ἐκ. Or they came out of the battle against these elements as winners. So maybe a substitution of this kind is plausible. The suggestion of Prof. H. v. Siebenthal :”νικάω ἐκ sich durch den Sieg befreien von” Von Siebenthal, H., & Haubeck, W. (2007). Matthäus bis Offenbarung (2., durchgesehene Auflage, S. 1293). Giessen; Basel: Brunnen Verlag.
In English: “νικάω ἐκ: to be freed from these by victory”. Could be rendered: “Those, who freed themselves from the beast ctl.” (is that straight English?). Thanks for further comments. Peter

Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — June 19th, 2017, 11:20 am


 

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

June 19th, 2017, 2:21 am

And Jonathan, can I interpret the adjunct idea in so far, as (I try a paraphrase) τοὺς νικῶντας (the winners) were winning from (ἐκ) the war against the three enemies, so one has to substitute an predicate idea when treating it as adjunct.

That’s not really what an adjunct is. An adjunct is not an argument of the verb, it is not even a predicate. Consider these examples:

s I
v read
o

a writing
+ on chocolate milk

In this case, the adjunct is applied to a nominal, ‘a writing’, it is not an adverbial adjunct. And this is not writing on chocolate milk the same way you might write on a piece of paper. Compare that to this:

s I
v am writing
+ about chocolate milk

Here, the about phrase is an adjunct of the verb, and it would be very confusing to say “on” here.

Now consider this sentence:

v εἶδον
o

τοὺς νικῶντας
+ ἐκ τοῦ θηρίου
+ καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ
+ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

o2

v ἑστῶτας
+ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν

I think τοὺς νικῶντας means essentially “the victors”. Like the chocolate milk example, I don’t think looking for the meaning of νίκην ἐκ τίνος is going to help us, and I think the adjuncts apply to the nominalized sense. Robert’s conjecture is interesting and well-informed, but I think the context rules against it – they did not actually defeat the beast or beat him up, their victory came from persisting to the end, so this does not seem closely related to ἐκνικάω.

Swete’s explanation (attached) makes sense to me. Translation is tricky here, I wonder if “out of the hand of” could be helpful. I should note that most translations don’t seem to follow this understanding, though. I’m not sure why not.

swete-rev15.2.jpg

Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 19th, 2017, 10:34 am


Dear Robert, to prove a Latin substratum for John would be hard for L. Mot – except for some loanwords, the direction is more towards a Aramaic/Hebrew substratum – but Mot is of value despite as the more plausible connection to the native language of John (A/H) could be checked. That is indeed something one could do. The Latin has vincere with Akkusativ, exactly as the Greek does usually with νικάω. The Greek ἐκ would meet the Latin de with Ablative. So I think a reference to Latin won`t bring insight, but as I said, a comparison to the Aramaic/Hebrew would seem to be of more effect. At least that is only my idea regarding the Mot hypothesis.
Yours

Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — June 19th, 2017, 9:52 am


Diachronistically there is a tendency in Greek for prepositions to move from a pre-verbal position to a pre-argument one. So I would assume that νικάω ἐκ is a modified form of ἐκνικάω. ‘Beat the crap out of’ gives the sense–––though hardly the flavour of acceptable Biblical English.

Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — June 17th, 2017, 10:53 pm


 

Peter Streitenberger wrote:

June 17th, 2017, 5:43 am

I’ve done a TLG research of νικάω and I had difficulties to find it in a connection with a preposition object as ἐκ as in Rev. But cf. Strabo, Geographica 9.1.7 “νικήσας ἐκ μονομαχίας τὸν τῶν Βοιωτῶν βασιλέα Ξάνθον”, which could be rendert “[…], after he won in a single combat over the King of the Boiotians, Xanthos” (I hope it is straight English).

First off, I don’t think this is an argument of νικάω, I think it is an adjunct, which means the lexicon might not tell you much. First it is nominalized, then several things are said about the nominalized participle:

τοὺς νικῶντας
+ ἐκ τοῦ θηρίου
+ καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ
+ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

Winer has a pretty good write up of this (see below). So I don’t think you have to find instances of ἐκ with νικάω to interpret the adjuncts, you can interpret the nominal τοὺς νικῶντας on its own, because these are not arguments of νικάω. I think these three phrases simply tell you where the victorious came from – they came out of the scenes described in Revelation 13:7, Revelation 13:15 ff, and Revelation 14:13. I can’t quite tell if this use of ἐκ is slightly odd Greek or if perfectly normal Greek strikes me as a little odd in this instance, but I think this is what it probably means.

Screen Shot 2017-06-17 at 9.07.14 AM.png

Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 17th, 2017, 7:40 pm


Dear friends,
today I arrive with a (for me at least) tricky question.

In Rev. 15,2 it states:
Καὶ εἶδον ὡς θάλασσαν ὑαλίνην μεμιγμένην πυρί, καὶ τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ θηρίου καὶ ἐκ τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, ἑστῶτας ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν ὑαλίνην, ἔχοντας κιθάρας τοῦ θεοῦ.

(Darby): And I saw as a glass sea, mingled with fire, and those that had gained the victory over the beast, and over its image, and over the number of its name, standing upon the glass sea, having harps of God.

I’ve done a TLG research of νικάω and I had difficulties to find it in a connection with a preposition object as ἐκ as in Rev. But cf. Strabo, Geographica 9.1.7 “νικήσας ἐκ μονομαχίας τὸν τῶν Βοιωτῶν βασιλέα Ξάνθον”, which could be rendert “[…], after he won in a single combat over the King of the Boiotians, Xanthos” (I hope it is straight English).

Unfortunately there are not much more parallel passages – so my question – how to treat Rev 15,2 and the threefold ἐκ after νικάω where an accusative had been expected. Yours Peter

Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — June 17th, 2017, 5:43 am


People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]