- Gary, it has been a while since I looked into this, but I think the number is 100% of actual Greek mss, not counting copies of printed texts, etc. The KJVMessage 1 of 55 , Dec 17, 2008View SourceGary, it has been a while since I looked into this, but I think the number is 100% of actual Greek mss, not counting copies of printed texts, etc.
The KJV apparently follows the Vulgate instead of the Greek about 100 times. Revelation 22:19 is one of the well known places. In other cases where the Vulgate was followed, some Greek manuscripts were later found that also contained the same reading. See Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) (Cambridge: University Press, 1884), pp. 262-63. He lists 83 passages where the KJV seems to follow the Latin Vulgate.
Though divided, I think most of the Vulgate manuscripts and printed editions had "book." This is in contradiction to some KJVOs. For example, Kirk DiVietro, who, in his attempt to defend the KJV, claimed "Erasmus did not get 'book of life' from the Latin." This is on page 28 of his book Why Not the King James Version! For a rebuttal of DiVietro, see Conjurske, "Whence Comes 'Book of Life' in Rev. 22:19?" pp. 157-60.
Likewise, Schmule said, "it is to be observed that "book of life" appears in Revelation six times: at 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, and 21:27. "Tree of life" appears outside this passage a total of three times: 2:7, it is to be observed that "book of life" appears in Revelation six times: at 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, and 21:27. "Tree of life" appears outside this passage a total of three times: 2:7, 22:2, and 22:14. The "book of life" receives twice the mention of the "tree of life". The "book of life" receives twice the mention of the "tree of life""
Notice the context actually is tree of life - 22:2, and 22:14. The six times: at 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, and 21:27 vesres 2:7, 22:2, and 22:14 means nothing,
Finally, if we were to seriously consider book of life as original, we would (if consistent) need to reconsider thousands of other readings which are rejected by everyone, but which have better evidence for authenticity than book of life. I predict 100% are pre-rejected by Schmule if the are contra KJV.
Gary S. Dykes said: 99.9% of all Greek manuscripts correctly read: "tree".
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Oun Kwon <kwonbooks@...> wrote:
I tried an off list question on this several year old discussion. Since there is no reply, I am asking for help here on the list. I have put those statements in red and in large fonts so that they can be spotted easy for your eyes.
My question is: Where is the particular writing by Iraneaus concerning this Rev 22:19 issue? In the web resource I could not find it by search within his writings. Can you help me?
--- On Mon, 7/24/06, Schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:
From: Schmuel <schmuel@...>
Subject: [textualcriticism] Rev 22:19 - book of life - tree of life
Date: Monday, July 24, 2006, 3:37 PM
The recent Revelation 22:19 discussion was interesting,
I noticed a few things I would like to comment, omissions, questions etc.
Revelation 22:19 (KJB)
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book.
EARLY AND MID CHURCH WRITERS
These were not mentioned at all, I noticed a number referenced for "book of life"
These would be helpful to research and check.
Ambrose (c 390 AD)
And ... are there any for "tree of life" ?
Also .. the discussion from Irenaeus
http://ccel. org/fathers2/ ANF-01/anf01- 63.htm#P9303_ 2719209
fits very well with the internal argument (below) that "book of life" is correct.
And I believe this note may be significant in the Erasmus discussion.
http://www.bible- researcher. com/bib-e. html
"The Annotations show that quotations from the early Latin ecclesiastical writers
..... were often decisive in his choice of readings"
NON-GREEK MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE (per Thomas Holland and others)
... however we have discussed the Bohairic .
Gary S. Dykes
> how did the word for "book" occur in the Bohairic? Certainly the Bohairic terms for "tree" and
> "book" cannot be confused morphologically nor phonetically. And (as Voobus clearly points out)
> the Bohairic text is early (probably early 300s.) Rarely is the Bohairic influenced by the Latin.
The Peshitta did not have Rev till late, Lamsa/Murdoch/ Etheridge have "tree of life",
probably from the 6th century Greek-->Aramaic translation line.
============ ========= ========= ========= =======
While doctrinally based, this does seem to be quite strong,
at least for those who view the Bible as consistent.
http://www.deanburg onsociety. org/KJBible/ reply.htm - Jack Moorman
The variant reading, though supported by the Greek,
can hardly be said to make sense: …shall take away his part out of the tree of life
http://members. aol.com/basfawlt y/rev2219. htm
Revelation 22:19 and "The Book of Life" - T. L. Hubeart
Other than this passage, it is to be observed that "book of life" appears in Revelation six times: at 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, and 21:27. "Tree of life" appears outside this passage a total of three times: 2:7, 22:2, and 22:14. The "book of life" receives twice the mention of the "tree of life" for good reason: the "tree" appears to be a symbol of reward, while the "book" is symbolic of a person's very salvation. Notice the difference between 2:7 and 3:5 --the former pictures a believer who has already entered the holy city and is receiving fruit from the tree as a reward, while the latter pictures one just getting to enter the city (putting on "white raiment," which is the preparation for entering into His joys; cf. Matt. 22:11) and being assured of his entrance in the words, "I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."
That the meaning of the disputed words in 22:19 is "book of life" is confirmed by mention of exile from "the holy city." We are not in the realm of "reward" here (as we are in 22:12-14 , the last time the "tree" has been mentioned) but in that of soul-peril, as it is a serious thing to tamper with the words of the Lord. (Incidentally, the commentaries of Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott seem to confirm the soul-peril idea. Henry says that "he who takes anything away from [the word of God] cuts himself off from all the promises and privileges of it," while Scott notes that this is expressed "in the most awful manner" and that those who tamper with the canon "have abundant cause to tremble at this solemn warning.")
Note that this fits very well with the Ireneaus commentary.
============ ========= ========= ========= ==
Gary S. Dykes
> 99.9% of all Greek manuscripts correctly read: "tree".
- ... No. ... Vulgar Latin as spoken and written in Gaul evolved into Old French and PROVENCAL, Gascon, and Occitan etc over the course of centuries. The firstMessage 55 of 55 , Jan 6, 2009View SourceJovial wrote:
>Are you kidding?<No.
> I'm not sure exactly what time periods Gaulic Latin evolved into Old French / Provencial, but I would say that it's probably rather safe to assume that the Old Latin had the biggest influence on that region.<Vulgar Latin as spoken and written in Gaul evolved into Old French and PROVENCAL, Gascon, and Occitan etc over the course of centuries. The first bit of Old French we have evidence of is mid-9th century, the Oaths of Strasbourg, though the language that we could Old French would obviously be a bit earlier.
But no, it is not safe to assume that it is Latin or VL Biblical texts that would be the biggest influence on Gaul in the second century CE. "Old Latin" as a linguistic designation refers to Latin of before 75 BCE, so "Old Latin" wouldn't be influencing Irenaeus in any case.
For one thing, we don't know quite when or where the various Vetus Latina translations began, but our first solid evidence for such translations are in North Africa with Tertullian and the Scitillan Martyrs, not in Italy, esp. Rome, nor in Gaul.
For a second thing, Gaul at this period was multi-lingual. The native Gaulish was still spoken and used, Latin was used for official functions and trade etc, and there were other Celtic speakers and Greeks. Irenaeus himself says he learned Gaulish with difficulty and seems to have preached in that language rather than in Latin. Further, the sixth century author, Gregory of Tours, when writing lives of the martyrs and saints for Gaul at this period (he believes Irenaeus a martyr)almost all those he describes have Greek names, a few with Latin names. Irenaeus wrote in Greek: all his writings have Greek as their original language. Taken together, this suggests that not only Irenaeus, but most of the Christian community which he knew were Greek, and if not Greek, knew Greek or spoke Gaulish, not Latin.
For a third thing, Irenaeus's native language is Greek. He's from Asia Minor. He knew the Bible, the LXX and the early Christian writings in Greek. Why, and for that matter how, would a native Greek speaker who already knew these texts in Greek suddenly jettison all his knowledge and his native tongue in favor of a different language and translation of the texts he already knew? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
And fourth, so far as I know, there isn't any evidence for Vetus Latina translations in Gaul at this period. It might be interesting as an exercise to compare the Latin translation of Irenaeus with VL readings when he cites Scripture, but ultimately that still would not demonstrate that Irenaeus himself knew and used Vetus Latina translations.
>> Vulgate was after Irenaeus, but it was influenced by many of the same Old Latin readings as those in Lyon would have had access to.<<Not at all. By Jerome's day, 2 centuries after Irenaeus, there would have been a lot more Latin translations and they would have been disseminated more widely, particularly in the West since by this time the empire had pretty well split between Latin and Greek speakers. This is what made Jerome so valuable: he knew and could speak and read both languages. That's a rather significant change in the linguistic map of the empire and so reading the situation in Jerome's lifetime back into Irenaeus' is a problematic anachronism.
>>One should be open to multiple possibilities when consulting how Church 'fathers' quote scripture, including the possibility they are paraphrasing from incomplete memory.<<
One should also be open to following the evidence, and certainly nothing I've said on this subject should suggest to you that I'm not aware that many writers paraphrase or cite from memory, sometimes an incomplete or imperfect one.
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze