Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Rev 9:16

Expand Messages
  • Maurice Robinson
    ... Speaking as a true son of the south (where we uns talk funnier but more logical than you Yankees up nawth), for us the reading in would be the more
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 16, 1997
      On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

      > Suppose there are three readings in some document:
      >
      > I went *in* the house.
      > I went *inside* the house.
      > I went *outside* the house.
      >
      > To me, in this hypothetical case, the original reading is clearly
      > "inside." The change from "inside" to "in" is easy; so is the change
      > from "inside" to "outside." To change from "in" to "outside," or
      > the reverse (barring something outside the immediate context)
      > requires *two* changes. So "inside" is the middle reading.

      Speaking as a true son of the south (where we'uns talk funnier but more
      logical than you Yankees up nawth), for us the reading "in" would be the
      more likely original. Only a literary purist would change that good and
      decent colloquialism into the more formal "inside". Now, how some
      carpetbagger came up with the "outside" reading, I don't even fathom a
      guess....... :-)

      > We have a similar situation in Rev. 9:16. Given the three readings
      > duo, dis, and omit, omit *must* be secondary. The choice between
      > duo and dis is more complicated (and may depend on an understanding
      > of the style of the Apocalypse which I do not have), but duo seems
      > to me to be more likely to be secondary. In any case, it is
      > relatively poorly attested.

      I still fail to see a "middle reading" concept here, since basically it is
      only a question of two slightly divergent spellings meaning "two", which
      numeral is either present or omitted. I certainly would see NO reason
      whatever for either form of "two" to be omitted merely to settle the
      question between what might appear to be different options.

      I could much more readily concur if the numerals in question were "two"
      and "five" respectively -- then I could easily understand how or why some
      scribes might choose to omit either numeral in order to escape a
      difficulty -- but this is simply NOT the case in the variant unit under
      consideration, and thus (in my opinion), _no_ "middle reading".

      _________________________________________________________________________
      Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
      Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    • Robert B. Waltz
      On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote, ... Allow me to explain. The middle reading, if there are three readings, is
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 16, 1997
        On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson <mrobinsn@...> wrote,
        in part:

        >Regarding the discussion of the variant at Rev. 9:16 and the supposed
        >significance of the "middle reading", perhaps I fail to discern the
        >point adequately, but I do not see where any supposed rule would "favor
        >the middle reading" in this circumstance, and indeed wonder whether
        >there is _any_ "middle reading" with which to work.

        Allow me to explain. The "middle reading," if there are three readings,
        is the reading which can give rise to the other two readings directly.

        Let me give an English example.

        Suppose there are three readings in some document:

        I went *in* the house.
        I went *inside* the house.
        I went *outside* the house.

        To me, in this hypothetical case, the original reading is clearly
        "inside." The change from "inside" to "in" is easy; so is the change
        from "inside" to "outside." To change from "in" to "outside," or
        the reverse (barring something outside the immediate context)
        requires *two* changes. So "inside" is the middle reading.

        We have a similar situation in Rev. 9:16. Given the three readings
        duo, dis, and omit, omit *must* be secondary. The choice between
        duo and dis is more complicated (and may depend on an understanding
        of the style of the Apocalypse which I do not have), but duo seems
        to me to be more likely to be secondary. In any case, it is
        relatively poorly attested.

        [ ... ]

        >Externally, the reading _without_ either "duo" or "dis" is the
        >strongest attested numerically, having approximately 72% support (see
        >Hoskier's _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse_ for details).

        This *is* interesting (and one wishes this were more obvious from
        NA27). I am inclined, even so, to stand by my reasoning -- but
        it means that we must look at the history of the Byzantine text-
        form at this point. This I will have to leave for those with
        better resources for the task than I.

        [ ... ]

        >I confess that I can see _no_ reason why such a large number of horsemen
        >needed deliberately to be doubled by _any_ scribes, save possibly to
        >enhance the magnitude of the opposing forces. This could have been a
        >motive, but not a strong one in view of the large number already
        >stated.

        Here, at least, we agree. :-)

        Bob Waltz
        waltzmn@...
      • Vincent Broman
        ... A preference for middle readings would have to be based on an assumption that two-step corruptions are much less likely than any single-step corruption. If
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 18, 1997
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

          A preference for middle readings would have to be based on an assumption
          that two-step corruptions are much less likely than any single-step corruption.
          If you examine Text und Textwert and compare the likely chains of descent
          visible in the more complex units of variation, you will find many,
          many cases of two-step, three-step, etc. corruptions.
          This can be seen online (in cryptic form) in the rough ascii database
          http://www.znet.com/~broman/acts-tut.zip

          Vincent Broman Email: broman@...,broman@... = o
          2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _
          San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_)
          ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@... ___

          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
          Version: 2.6.2

          iQCVAwUBMy7ocGCU4mTNq7IdAQF4+AQAhqvmyhVQ2DedY1dIt6vqNt99BQ9MFBoZ
          dmrSxQlAXtAD1yMM3vuQ/oI2wxt/1A+CLawXrC15FZ5c3TiPQbBSHsX44YIBGWUW
          MYcS6WpBcPceeYTIUpq/8s75iWJmEYMSn6bn8p60g+mkKVM251qYB+eCrMQXwa/b
          Twgp0oqBYG4=
          =xfa5
          -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.