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

Rev. 22:19 AFAIRHSEI

Expand Messages
  • Larry Overton
    To familiarize myself with this discussion list, I searched the list archives, mostly just scanning the titles of subject threads, but also stopping at times
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      To familiarize myself with this discussion list, I searched the list archives, mostly just scanning the titles of subject threads, but also stopping at times to read a few posts. I noted with interest a recurring subject: Revelation 22:19 and Erasmus. That this verse/topic would be discussed in this forum came as no surprise.

       

      However, unless I missed something in the archives, your discussions of this verse have focused on the controversy of the reading XULOU versus the variant BIBLOU, with little if any attention given to the other variant readings for this verse. Granted, the controversy of the XULOU/BIBLOU readings has the most impact on the English translation of this clause in Rev. 22:19. Still, as you no doubt are all aware, there are other variant readings in this verse, even within the very clause that has received so much attention.

       

      Aside from the readings of the definite articles TOU and THS before the words XULOU and ZWHS, respectively, there is the matter of the reading AFAIRHSEI in this clause in the Erasmian editions/TR. If I am reading Hoskier correctly (Hoskier, II-644), there is no Greek MS support for this reading. I would very much like to hear the thoughts of the members of this list concerning the support for and the significance of this Erasmian reading/translation AFAIRHSEI versus the reading AFELEI.

       

      Larry G. Overton

    • David Robert Palmer
      Hello, Larry.  Here is my footnote from my translation of Revelation: ἀφελεῖ A 046 051 1611 1841 2074 2329 (73+ minuscules altogether) Erasmus2 NA27
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello, Larry.  Here is my footnote from my translation of Revelation:

        ἀφελεῖ A 046 051 1611 1841 2074 2329 (73+ minuscules altogether) Erasmus2 NA27 {\} //
        א αφελι // ἀφέλοι 82 627 1862 (about 80 minuscules) Compl. Colinaeus HF RP PK // א αφελι // “will make small” syrh // ἀφαιρήσει Erasmus 1,3,4,5 Aldus TR // lacuna C P 920 2351.  There may be no difference in meaning, as the future and the subjunctive are often interchangeable in this kind of expression.  Note: No apparatus that I know of lists the reading of Codex Alexandrinus for this variant; I myself obtained it from the online photograph of that codex.

        If you can't read the above Unicode, here it is otherwise:

        AFELEI A 046 051 1611 1841 2074 2329 (73+ minuscules altogether) Erasmus2 NA27 {\} // א AFELI // AFELOI 82 627 1862 (about 80 minuscules) Compl. Colinaeus HF RP PK //  “will make small” syr Harklensis // AFAIRHSEI Erasmus 1,3,4,5 Aldus TR // lacuna C P 920 2351.  There may be no difference in meaning, as the future and the subjunctive are often interchangeable in this kind of expression.  Note: No apparatus that I know of lists the reading of Codex Alexandrinus for this variant; I myself obtained it from the online photograph of that codex.

        Yes, as far as I can tell, the TR reading has no Greek manuscript support, nor even any support from early versions or fathers.  But, as I said above, there is no real difference in meaning.

        David Robert Palmer

        Larry Overton wrote:

        To familiarize myself with this discussion list, I searched the list archives, mostly just scanning the titles of subject threads, but also stopping at times to read a few posts. I noted with interest a recurring subject: Revelation 22:19 and Erasmus. That this verse/topic would be discussed in this forum came as no surprise.

         

        However, unless I missed something in the archives, your discussions of this verse have focused on the controversy of the reading XULOU versus the variant BIBLOU, with little if any attention given to the other variant readings for this verse. Granted, the controversy of the XULOU/BIBLOU readings has the most impact on the English translation of this clause in Rev. 22:19. Still, as you no doubt are all aware, there are other variant readings in this verse, even within the very clause that has received so much attention.

         

        Aside from the readings of the definite articles TOU and THS before the words XULOU and ZWHS, respectively, there is the matter of the reading AFAIRHSEI in this clause in the Erasmian editions/TR. If I am reading Hoskier correctly (Hoskier, II-644), there is no Greek MS support for this reading. I would very much like to hear the thoughts of the members of this list concerning the support for and the significance of this Erasmian reading/translation AFAIRHSEI versus the reading AFELEI.

         

        _

      • Larry Overton
        Happy New Year, everyone. Thanks for your reply, David. You said
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          Happy New Year, everyone.

          Thanks for your reply, David. You said

          << There may be no difference in meaning, as the future and the subjunctive are often interchangeable in this kind of expression.  >>

          Would you please elaborate on this comment? While I agree that “the future and the subjunctive are often interchangeable in this kind of expression,” according to the morphology tools contained in my BibleWorks software and my old copy of _The Analytical Greek Lexicon_, pgs. 60f., both of the variants in this clause (AFAIRHSEI/AFELEI) are different forms of the 3 pers. sing. fut. ind. act. of AFAIREW, the latter reading being distinguished as second future. The only form of AFAIREW identified as subjunctive in this verse is in the first clause: AFELH. Of course, here too the reading of the TR differs from that of the Robinson-Pierpont, Hodges-Farstad and critical texts, having AFAIRH.

          Note: The parsing given on p. 61 of the _AGL_ for AFELEI is identified as “3 pers. sing. fut. 2, ind.—Gr. Sch. Tdf.” Of course, the _AGL_ was published before the WH or N/U texts, and so the critical texts referenced were those of Griesbach, Scholz & Tischendorf (1850).

           

          Larry G. Overton

           

          P.S. Regarding your note concerning the reading in Codex Alexandrinus, Cowper’s 1860 reproduction of Woide’s transcription of the text of the NT in A (02) has the reading AFELEI at the beginning of the clause in question.

           


          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Robert Palmer
          Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:15 PM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Rev. 22:19 AFAIRHSEI

           

          Hello, Larry.  Here is my footnote from my translation of Revelation:

          φελε A 046 051 1611 1841 2074 2329 (73+ minuscules altogether) Erasmus2 NA27 {\} // א αφελι // φέλοι 82 627 1862 (about 80 minuscules) Compl. Colinaeus HF RP PK // א αφελι // “will make small” syrh // φαιρήσει Erasmus 1,3,4,5 Aldus TR // lacuna C P 920 2351.  There may be no difference in meaning, as the future and the subjunctive are often interchangeable in this kind of expression.  Note: No apparatus that I know of lists the reading of Codex Alexandrinus for this variant; I myself obtained it from the online photograph of that codex.

          If you can't read the above Unicode, here it is otherwise:

          AFELEI A 046 051 1611 1841 2074 2329 (73+ minuscules altogether) Erasmus2 NA27 {\} //
          א AFELI // AFELOI 82 627 1862 (about 80 minuscules) Compl. Colinaeus HF RP PK //  “will make small” syr Harklensis // AFAIRHSEI Erasmus 1,3,4,5 Aldus TR // lacuna C P 920 2351.  There may be no difference in meaning, as the future and the subjunctive are often interchangeable in this kind of expression.  Note: No apparatus that I know of lists the reading of Codex Alexandrinus for this variant; I myself obtained it from the online photograph of that codex.

          Yes, as far as I can tell, the TR reading has no Greek manuscript support, nor even any support from early versions or fathers.  But, as I said above, there is no real difference in meaning.

          David Robert Palmer

        • David Robert Palmer
          Hi Larry, Woops, I must have been thinking of the variant earlier in the verse.  Thanks for pointing this out; corrected now. Larry Overton wrote: Would you
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            Hi Larry,

            Woops, I must have been thinking of the variant earlier in the verse.  Thanks for pointing this out; corrected now.

            Larry Overton wrote:
            Would you please elaborate on this comment? While I agree that “the future and the subjunctive are often interchangeable in this kind of expression,” according to the morphology tools contained in my BibleWorks software and my old copy of _The Analytical Greek Lexicon_, pgs. 60f., both of the variants in this clause (AFAIRHSEI/AFELEI) are different forms of the 3 pers. sing. fut. ind. act. of AFAIREW, the latter reading being distinguished as second future. The only form of AFAIREW identified as subjunctive in this verse is in the first clause: AFELH.

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.