Revelation Chaps. 2 and 3

[bingley]

Chapter 2:17 [face=SPIonic] (O e)/xwn ou)=j a)kousa/tw ti/ to\ pneu=ma le/gei tai=j e)kklhsi/aij. Tw=? nikw=nti dw/sw au)tw=? tou= ma/nna tou= kekrumme/nou, kai\ dw/sw au)tw=? yh=fon leukh/n, kai\ e)pi\ th\n yh=fon o)/noma kaino\n gegramme/non o(\ ou)dei\j oi)=den ei) mh\ o( lamba/nwn. [/face]

Chapter 2 26-28 [face=SPIonic]Kai\ o( nikw=n kai\ o( thrw=n a)/xri te/louj ta\ e)/rga mou, dw/sw au)tw=? e)cousi/an e)pi\ tw=n e)qnw=n, kai\ poimanei= au)tou\j e)n r(a/bdw? sidhra=? w(j ta\ skeu/h ta\ keramika\ suntri/betai, w(j ka)gw\ ei)/lhfa para\ tou= patro/j mou, kai\ dw/sw au)tw=? to\n a)ste/ra to\n prwino/n. [/face]

Chapter 3:12-13 [face=SPIonic] (O nikw=n poih/sw au)to\n stu/lon e)n tw=? naw=? tou= qeou= mou, kai\ e)/cw ou) mh\ e)ce/lqh? e)/ti, kai\ gra/yw e)p' au)to\n to\ o)/noma tou= qeou= mou kai\ to\ o)/noma th=j po)lewj tou= qeou= mou, th=j kainh=j )Ierousalh/m, h( katabai/nousa e)k tou= ou)ranou= a)po\ tou= qeou= mou, kai\ to\ o)/noma/ mou to\ kaino/n. [/face]

Chapter 3:21 [face=SPIonic] (O nikw=n dw/sw au)tw=? kaqi/sai met' e)mou= e)n tw=? qro/nw? mou, w(j ka)gw\ e)ni/khsa kai\ e)ka/qisa meta\ tou= patro/j mou e)n tw=? qro/nw? au)tou=.[/face]

My problem here is the expression [face=SPIonic] o( nikw=n. [/face]I've looked at various translations to check my work, and they agree that [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n [/face]in 2:26 and 3:21 is the one to whom things will be given rather than the one who will do the giving. Similarly in 3:12 they make it refer to the one who will be made a pillar rather than the one who will do the making. If this is correct, why is [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] in the nominative rather than in the dative or accusative as necessary, as in 2:17?

[Koala]

According to sources on the net, these are examples of "a pendant nominative construction" where a description of something within the clause is placed in the nominative case and moved forward ahead of the clause for emphatic reasons - this may be influenced by Semitic style.

Hope this helps

XAIPE

[ThomasGR]

Can it be a case of passive or active voice?

“Τω νικωντι” sounds like “He who has won”
whereas “Ο νικων” emphasizes “He who is winning”.

[bingley]

Koala, could you point me to those sources please?

Thomas, the difference is one of case, not active v. passive or present v. present perfect. [face=SPIonic] (o nikwn [/face] should agree with the subject of the sentence, which is I in [face=SPIonic] dwsw [/face] and [face=SPIonic] poihsw [/face]

[Koala]

Hi Bingley! - the ones from google are:

lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/ b-greek/2004-March/028816.html

lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/ b-greek/2004-March/028809.html

www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2070

www.bible.org/netbible/1jo5_notes.htm

these refer to the indentical construction in a passage from "1 John 5", and basically all make the same comment

Cheers

[Skylax]

This passage of the Revelation is strongly structured. It is poetry. There is like a succession of stanzas made on the same pattern. I would say that [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] acts here as the title of the concluding paragraph of each stanza.

The grammatical construction is always the same : first [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] then immediately after the verb in the 1st person singular (excluding instantaneously that [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] is a subject of the verb) then a pronoun that refers to [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] expressing the case that is needed.

This way of expression seems stronger than putting [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] directly in the needed case because the "victor"'s picture is presented more separately, not as a mere complement of the verb. It is more striking.

(By the way I saw that Article + Nominative can be used in the Koine as a vocative, but it is obviously not the case here)

[bingley]

The grammatical construction is always the same : first [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] then immediately after the verb in the 1st person singular (excluding instantaneously that [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] is a subject of the verb) then a pronoun that refers to [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] expressing the case that is needed.

Now, you see this is what I don't understand. My first instinct was to translate [face=SPIonic] (O nikw=n dw/sw [/face]as I, the conquering one, will give .....

[Skylax]

Ah, yes, I had not envisage it, but in this case there would perhaps be no article. Aristophanes says somewhere [face=SPIonic]e)gw\ ta)lhqh= le/gwn...[/face] "I, the one who says the truth...". Moreover, in the context, this interpretation would be a dead end.

XAIPE

[Bert]

This passage of the Revelation is strongly structured. It is poetry. There is like a succession of stanzas made on the same pattern. I would say that [face=SPIonic]o( nikw=n[/face] acts here as the title of the concluding paragraph of each stanza.

Skylax, I have read before that Revelation was written by someone who was not all that comfortable with the Greek language.
I have also read another view namely, it was written by someone who knew the language very well but wrote in simple Greek, with a few little mistakes, to make his readers feel more comfortable.

If he wrote something in poetry, the second option seems more likely.
Do you have any views on this.
Thanks.

[Skylax]

Well, Bert, what I said has no scientific value. I described only the way the text appears to me. It implies nothing regarding the personality of the author. After all, everybody can be a poet sometimes (Do you remember the first time you saw her ?). I meant that in the text, there are poetic resources at work, but it is by no means "Greek verse".