Rev 12:18 Ray Clendenen rclende at lifeway.com
Fri Jul 30 14:57:17 EDT 1999
Noun Suffixes Rev 12:18 Ray Clendenen at BSSBNOTES07/30/99 01:57 PMDoes anyone know why some translations have 18 verses in Rev. 12 and somehave only 17 verses and the contents of v. 18 (“and I/he stood upon thesand/shore of the sea”) at the beginning of 13:1? Other than the I/he textproblem I NA doesn’t indicate a text problem.Ray ClendenenBroadman & Holman
Noun SuffixesRev 12:18
Rev 12:18 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 30 15:33:26 EDT 1999
Rev 12:18 Rev 12:18 > Ray Clendenen at BSSBNOTES> 07/30/99 01:57 PM> > Does anyone know why some translations have 18 verses in Rev. 12 and some> have only 17 verses and the contents of v. 18 (“and I/he stood upon the> sand/shore of the sea”) at the beginning of 13:1? Other than the I/he text> problem I NA doesn’t indicate a text problem.> Ray Clendenen> Broadman & HolmanRay,It is precisely the ESTAQH/ESTAQHN question which is the issue. If thefirst person is read then it becomes a comment about the narrator whichfalls into the next scene (13:1). If it is the third person it becomes acomment about hO DRAKWN which belongs to 12:18. (vid. H.B. Swete,Revelation p160)Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Rev 12:18Rev 12:18
Rev 12:18 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 30 15:53:44 EDT 1999
Rev 12:18 Noun Suffixes >> Ray Clendenen at BSSBNOTES>> 07/30/99 01:57 PM>> >> Does anyone know why some translations have 18 verses in Rev. 12 and some>> have only 17 verses and the contents of v. 18 (“and I/he stood upon the>> sand/shore of the sea”) at the beginning of 13:1? Other than the I/he text>> problem I NA doesn’t indicate a text problem.>> Ray Clendenen>> Broadman & Holman> > Ray,> > It is precisely the ESTAQH/ESTAQHN question which is the issue. If the> first person is read then it becomes a comment about the narrator which> falls into the next scene (13:1). If it is the third person it becomes a> comment about hO DRAKWN which belongs to 12:18. (vid. H.B. Swete,> Revelation p160)> > Clay> I should have looked at the English versions before posting this. Sinceyour question isn’t really answered by my comment. All the Englishversions I have at hand put 12:18 into 13:1 without it being dependenton the textual issue. So the editors of the english versions do notfollow the thinking of H.B.Swete on this issue.Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Rev 12:18Noun Suffixes
Rev 12:18 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 30 18:03:35 EDT 1999
Kalos Computer Programme LXX reader >>> Ray Clendenen at BSSBNOTES>>> 07/30/99 01:57 PM>>> >>> Does anyone know why some translations have 18 verses in Rev. 12 and some>>> have only 17 verses and the contents of v. 18 (“and I/he stood upon the>>> sand/shore of the sea”) at the beginning of 13:1? Other than the I/he text>>> problem I NA doesn’t indicate a text problem.>>> Ray Clendenen>>> Broadman & Holman>> >> Ray,>> >> It is precisely the ESTAQH/ESTAQHN question which is the issue. If the>> first person is read then it becomes a comment about the narrator which>> falls into the next scene (13:1). If it is the third person it becomes a>> comment about hO DRAKWN which belongs to 12:18. (vid. H.B. Swete,>> Revelation p160)>> >> > > I should have looked at the English versions before posting this. Since> your question isn’t really answered by my comment. All the English> versions I have at hand put 12:18 into 13:1 without it being dependent> on the textual issue. So the editors of the english versions do not> follow the thinking of H.B.Swete on this issue.> Ray,I decided to look further into this.Forget the textual variant. Assume that ESTAQH (third person) is thecorrect reading. Now you still have to decided where it belongs. The twomost recent commentators, Beale and Aune, do not agree on this. Auneleans toward joining this with the preceding scene. One argument forthis the third person singular verbs in the preceding verses which havehO DRAKWN as a subject. Another reason is the semantic awkwardness ofthis statement at the beginning of the next scene. I agree with thisconstruction.Beale’s construction strikes me as off the wall for several reasons.Beale argues that 12:18 should be joined syntactically with KAI EIDOV in13:1. He thinks that the dragon standing by the sea is part of what isbeing seen KAI EIDOV in 13:1. I find this a most unconvincingconstruction because it violates the characteristic syntactical patternof the Apocalypse for opening new scenes. What Beale is suggesting mightmake sense in some other book of the NT but not in the Apocalypse.Beale has a further strange comment on Rev 12:18. He states that some”significant manuscripts” also have “I Saw” in 12:18. Well I wish he hadlisted the “significant manuscripts” he is talking about because Ichecked everything I have (Alford, R.H. Charles, Aune, H.B. Swete, . . .several others) and the reading he is suggesting does not show upanywhere. If it doesn’t show up in R.H. Charles then I kind of doubtthat it is a reading from “significant manuscripts” unless they werediscovered after Charles published. Even so, this would not explain whyAune didn’t mention these “significant manuscripts.” Technicalcommentaries should not make vague statements like this. These are thekinds of statements you put in the margins of English translations, thehave no place in a commentary intended for use by scholars.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Kalos Computer ProgrammeLXX reader