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

The Singular Reading in Revelation 5:9

Expand Messages
  • Vox Verax
    Now there s an interesting result: it would appear that only Codex A does not say us in Rev. 5:9, but its text is adopted in most English translations,
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Now there's an interesting result: it would appear that only Codex A does not say "us" in Rev. 5:9, but its text is adopted in most English translations, against all other Greek MSS of Revelation.

      (So much for rejecting singular readings!)

      So the NIV ("persons", the NASB ("men" italicized), the NLT ("people"), the Lexham English Bible ("people" italicized - this is based on the SBLGNT text), the Common English Bible ("people"), the CEV ("people"), and the ESV ("people") have, as there base-text here in Rev. 5:9, only one Greek manuscript.

      The KJV, NKJV, and WEB all say "us" -- "You are worthy to take the book, and to open its seals, for you were killed, and bought *us* for God with your blood" --

      But this should be considered along with the next couple of variants in 5:10. The song continues:

      -- "Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made" (or, "will make") them (or, "us" in the TR) kings and priests to our God."

      Now, it should be pointed out that the 24 elders are the individuals who are singing this song. And this adds a distinct theological dimension to these variants: for if we adopt "us" in 5:9, then we must conclude that the 24 elders were purchased with Christ's blood. The theological question arises when we ask, "Who are these individuals: angels, or deceased human beings?"

      A person who understood them to be exalted human beings, that is, deceased saints, would have no problem with the "us" in 5:9. And the case that the 24 elders are saints, or that they in some way collectively represent saints, is augmented when we see in 5:8 that each one of the elders has a harp and "golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." From the mouths of such individuals, the statement that the Lamb "bought us for God with your blood" is unobjectionable.

      But what if a copyist thought that the 24 elders were angels? Such a copyist would consider it downright scandalous that the person who made his exemplar had somehow written UMAS, since (he would reason) Christ died for mankind, not for angelkind, a la Hebrews 2:16. Such a copyist would thus have a very strong motivation to conclude that UMAS was an error in his exemplar, and that it would be a good thing if he were to avoid repeating the error.

      Now consider the reasoning that Metzger employed about this: he proposes that UMAS in 5:9 is unsuitable next to AUTOUS in 5:10. (AUTOUS is the Byz reading there; the TR has HMAS.) But how is it unsuitable if I say, "You have set us free, and you will make them kings who will reign upon the earth"? The identity of the "them" might not be immediately clear, but considering that we're in the middle of an apocalyptic vision, that should not be considered even a speed bump as far as the plausibility of the reading is concerned.

      Figuring that the 24 elders in Rev. 5 already are victoriously reigning, in some sense -- inasmuch as they are already described as having thrones, and already have golden crowns (stefanous) in 4:4 -- it is not unsuitable that they would, if they represent deceased saints, state in their song that "we" have been ransomed, and that "they" -- undeceased saints -- will be made kings and priests to our God. It might not be the easiest way imaginable to convey that concept, but this is Revelation after all.

      I would be interested in hearing from those who advocate the non-inclusion of UMAS in Rev. 5:9. I reckon that they bundle this variant with variants in 5:10 somehow, and propose that the entire song is about what God has done for other entities, not for the 24 elders themselves.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    • Vox Verax
      Peter, It looks like the Nestle-Aland compilers really do depend in Rev. 5:9 solely on the testimony of A and the Ethiopic version. (And what are the
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter,

        It looks like the Nestle-Aland compilers really do depend in Rev. 5:9 solely on the testimony of A and the Ethiopic version. (And what are the production-dates of the Ethiopic MSS involved? How late is this evidence? And could someone double-check this to make certain that the Ethiopic version really does uniformly support A here?)

        Every version except the Ethiopic, it seems, opposes Codex A here in one way or another. This includes the Syriac text of Revelation that John Gwynn presented in 1897; his reconstruction of its underlying Greek ancestor has HMAS after HGORASAS, without comment. (Gwynn claimed that he added comments in footnotes whenever there was something ambiguous in the Syriac rendering.) Gwynn suspected that this Syriac text could be traced to A.D. 508, and represented the Philoxenian Version.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
      • George F Somsel
        Actually, it s ἡμᾶς rather than ὑμᾶς.  Metzger s argument is that the 1st person pl lacks concord with the αὐτούς of 5.10.  I
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Actually, it's ἡμᾶς rather than ὑμᾶς.  Metzger's argument is that the 1st person pl lacks concord with the αὐτούς of 5.10.  I think he is correct in this.  As he notes, the reading without the pronoun explains the variations which do appear in other mss in matters such as order as well as the replacement of  αὐτούς by ἡμᾶς in 5.10.
           
          george
          gfsomsel

          search for truth, hear truth,
          learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          defend the truth till death.

          - Jan Hus
          _________

          From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 10:52 AM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] The Singular Reading in Revelation 5:9

           
          Now there's an interesting result: it would appear that only Codex A does not say "us" in Rev. 5:9, but its text is adopted in most English translations, against all other Greek MSS of Revelation.

          (So much for rejecting singular readings!)

          So the NIV ("persons", the NASB ("men" italicized), the NLT ("people"), the Lexham English Bible ("people" italicized - this is based on the SBLGNT text), the Common English Bible ("people"), the CEV ("people"), and the ESV ("people") have, as there base-text here in Rev. 5:9, only one Greek manuscript.

          The KJV, NKJV, and WEB all say "us" -- "You are worthy to take the book, and to open its seals, for you were killed, and bought *us* for God with your blood" --

          But this should be considered along with the next couple of variants in 5:10. The song continues:

          -- "Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made" (or, "will make") them (or, "us" in the TR) kings and priests to our God."

          Now, it should be pointed out that the 24 elders are the individuals who are singing this song. And this adds a distinct theological dimension to these variants: for if we adopt "us" in 5:9, then we must conclude that the 24 elders were purchased with Christ's blood. The theological question arises when we ask, "Who are these individuals: angels, or deceased human beings?"

          A person who understood them to be exalted human beings, that is, deceased saints, would have no problem with the "us" in 5:9. And the case that the 24 elders are saints, or that they in some way collectively represent saints, is augmented when we see in 5:8 that each one of the elders has a harp and "golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." From the mouths of such individuals, the statement that the Lamb "bought us for God with your blood" is unobjectionable.

          But what if a copyist thought that the 24 elders were angels? Such a copyist would consider it downright scandalous that the person who made his exemplar had somehow written UMAS, since (he would reason) Christ died for mankind, not for angelkind, a la Hebrews 2:16. Such a copyist would thus have a very strong motivation to conclude that UMAS was an error in his exemplar, and that it would be a good thing if he were to avoid repeating the error.

          Now consider the reasoning that Metzger employed about this: he proposes that UMAS in 5:9 is unsuitable next to AUTOUS in 5:10. (AUTOUS is the Byz reading there; the TR has HMAS.) But how is it unsuitable if I say, "You have set us free, and you will make them kings who will reign upon the earth"? The identity of the "them" might not be immediately clear, but considering that we're in the middle of an apocalyptic vision, that should not be considered even a speed bump as far as the plausibility of the reading is concerned.

          Figuring that the 24 elders in Rev. 5 already are victoriously reigning, in some sense -- inasmuch as they are already described as having thrones, and already have golden crowns (stefanous) in 4:4 -- it is not unsuitable that they would, if they represent deceased saints, state in their song that "we" have been ransomed, and that "they" -- undeceased saints -- will be made kings and priests to our God. It might not be the easiest way imaginable to convey that concept, but this is Revelation after all.

          I would be interested in hearing from those who advocate the non-inclusion of UMAS in Rev. 5:9. I reckon that they bundle this variant with variants in 5:10 somehow, and propose that the entire song is about what God has done for other entities, not for the 24 elders themselves.

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.




        • Daniel Buck
          From: Vox Verax
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>

            <<It looks like the Nestle-Aland compilers really do depend in Rev. 5:9 solely on the testimony of A and the Ethiopic version. (And what are the production-dates of the Ethiopic MSS involved? How late is this evidence? And could someone double-check this to make certain that the Ethiopic version really does uniformly support A here?)>>
            --------------------------------------------

            I've never seen any discussion on the Ethiopic (other than that their mss tend to be extremely late, like post-15th century), and whether the grammar makes any more sense without the pronoun than it does in Greek, but the absence of HMAS in A is easy to account for: it was dropped between columns. I believe the page reference is folio 129b, where column 1 ends with _QW_ and column 2 begins with EN.

             
            Daniel Buck

          • Vox Verax
            George, Yes, yes; HMAS (not UMAS) is what I meant. My bad. Is there anything else you would add to what Metzger said? Cause you seemed to just repeat what
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              George,

              Yes, yes; HMAS (not UMAS) is what I meant. My bad.

              Is there anything else you would add to what Metzger said? 'Cause you seemed to just repeat what he said. Why should we require the individuals who are ransomed in 5:9 to be the same individuals who are described as those who have been made kings and priests in 5:10?

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
            • Vox Verax
              Daniel, Why, so it does. (I just checked the image of fol 129b of Codex A at CSNTM.) So that s it?? There s no other support for the non-inclusion of HMAS in
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Daniel,

                Why, so it does. (I just checked the image of fol 129b of Codex A at CSNTM.)

                So that's it?? There's no other support for the non-inclusion of HMAS in Rev. 5:9 besides Codex A (in which the word could easily drop out between columns, as you suggest) and some ultra-late (and possible not uniform) Ethiopic reading?

                The spin that Metzger put on the evidence is impressive: seeing that HMAS seems unsuitable in close proximity to AUTOUS, he proceeds to argue that this difficulty is evidence that HMAS is a scribal addition.

                And the readings in 5:10 that imply that scribes saw HMAS in 5:9 don't slow him down at all.

                Does anyone happen to know where exactly in the works of Hippolytus are his utilizations of Rev. 5:9-10?

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
              • George F Somsel
                I really can t imagine them being a different group [He purchased US and made THEM priests?].  What kind of sense would that make?   george gfsomsel search
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  I really can't imagine them being a different group [He purchased US and made THEM priests?].  What kind of sense would that make?
                   
                  george
                  gfsomsel

                  search for truth, hear truth,
                  learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                  defend the truth till death.

                  - Jan Hus
                  _________

                  From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2012 12:40 AM
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: The Singular Reading in Revelation 5:9

                   
                  George,

                  Yes, yes; HMAS (not UMAS) is what I meant. My bad.

                  Is there anything else you would add to what Metzger said? 'Cause you seemed to just repeat what he said. Why should we require the individuals who are ransomed in 5:9 to be the same individuals who are described as those who have been made kings and priests in 5:10?

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.



                • George F Somsel
                  I neglected to mention the different placement of ἡμᾶς and even it s being changed to ἡμῶν.  This should tip us off to the fact that it was
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I neglected to mention the different placement of ἡμᾶς and even it's being changed to ἡμῶν.  This should tip us off to the fact that it was not a part of the original just as the PA appears in different locations.
                     
                    george
                    gfsomsel

                    search for truth, hear truth,
                    learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                    defend the truth till death.

                    - Jan Hus
                    _________

                    From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2012 12:40 AM
                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: The Singular Reading in Revelation 5:9

                     
                    George,

                    Yes, yes; HMAS (not UMAS) is what I meant. My bad.

                    Is there anything else you would add to what Metzger said? 'Cause you seemed to just repeat what he said. Why should we require the individuals who are ransomed in 5:9 to be the same individuals who are described as those who have been made kings and priests in 5:10?

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.



                  • Vox Verax
                    George, GS: What kind of sense would that make? You re making my case for me; is your question not an acknowledgement that HMAS is the more difficult
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 4, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      George,

                      GS: "What kind of sense would that make?"

                      You're making my case for me; is your question not an acknowledgement that HMAS is the more difficult reading, and vulnerable to alternation by copyists wishing to remove the difficulty? You are basically saying (with Metzger) that a copyist intentionally made the text more difficult, and that this new, more-difficult reading became so popular as to find its way into every extant Greek copy of Revelation except Codex A (in which the word's absence is accounted for as a technical glitch in which HMAS was lost as the copyist moved from the bottom of one column to the top of the next one).

                      GS: "I neglected to mention the different placement of HMAS and even its being changed to HMWN."

                      HMWN, attested by six MSS (two of which are /vid/), is either the result of parablepsis in which the copyists' line of sight momentarily jumped to 5:10, or is an effect of bad handwriting. It is explicable as an accidental reading (although I suppose it is possible that a few copyists could have invented HMWN as an attempt to alleviate the difficulty posed by HMAS).

                      Regarding the different placement of HMAS: that data that Peter S. provided shows that a whole lot of MSS support TW QEW HMAS, and that 37 MSS support HMAS TW QEW. This sort of benign transposition is very, very frequent in NT MSS. Consider what Metzger is asserting has happened: even though the reading with HMAS is more difficult, he asserts that some copyists inserted HMAS before TW QEW and that some copyists inserted HUMAS after TW QEW, and that some copyists replaced TW QEW with HMAS. Can anyone read that without wondering why not a single copyist added AUTOUS?

                      GS: "This should tip us off to the fact that it was not a part of the original just as the PA appears in different locations."

                      Let's test that line of reasoning: in the vast majority of MSS, HMAS appears after TW QEW. In 37 MSS, HMAS appears after TW QEW. But instead of regarding this as the sort of benign transposition that routinely occurs throughout the NT text, you conclude that it shows that HMAS is not original. Let's see what would happen if you applied that line of reasoning to the other part of the transposition (i.e., TW QEW). In 20 MSS, HMAS is present but TW QEW is absent. If you applied your line of reasoning to TW QEW (instead of resorting to it selectively, when the external support for a favored reading is very limited and needs a bit of bolstering), you would have to draw the conclusion that the fact is that factually TW QEW is, in fact, not part of the original; the word-order variation and its absence in some MSS tips us off to the fact that it was inserted before HMAS by some copyists, and after HMAS by others.

                      Getting back to your first question: what sense would it make for the 24 elders to say "You have redeemed us to God by Your blood, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made them kings and priests upon the earth"? If the 24 elders represent deceased saints reigning in heaven, then their song means that they themselves have been redeemed by the Lamb, and that God has caused some other group – presumably Christians who have not yet died – to be kings and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.

                      Now here's something else which, istm, would strongly motivate a copyist to omit HMAS: in 5:8, the four living creatures are said to be singing along with the 24 elders. It seems perfectly clear that these living creatures are angelic beings. The idea that angels would say that they have been redeemed to God by the blood of the Lamb would be downright scandalous to copyists familiar with Hebrews 2:16. A case could probably made that if the non-inclusion of HMAS in Alexandrinus is not a simple scribal accident, then it is, to use Burgon's term, an "Orthodox corruption," intended to guard against the interpretation that the blood of Christ was applied to angels.

                      Yours in Christ,

                      James Snapp, Jr.
                    • George F Somsel
                      James Snapp wrote:  You re making my case for me; is your question not an acknowledgement that HMAS is the more difficult reading, and vulnerable to
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 4, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        James Snapp wrote:  "You're making my case for me; is your question not an acknowledgement that HMAS is the more difficult reading, and vulnerable to alternation by copyists wishing to remove the difficulty? You are basically saying (with Metzger) that a copyist intentionally made the text more difficult, and that this new, more-difficult reading became so popular as to find its way into every extant Greek copy of Revelation except Codex A (in which the word's absence is accounted for as a technical glitch in which HMAS was lost as the copyist moved from the bottom of one column to the top of the next one)."
                         
                        Lectio difficilior doesn't hold in all cases.  When the reading becomes absurd is one of those. As regards your claim that τῷ θεῷ would not be credited due to its being absent from some mss, there is considerable difference between being relocated and being missing.  In the case of being missing we have cases of parablepsis which are well attested.  In the case of relocation, the indication appears to be that someone (several someones) later decided to insert it but could not agree on where it should be inserted.
                         
                        george
                        gfsomsel

                        search for truth, hear truth,
                        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                        defend the truth till death.

                        - Jan Hus
                        _________

                        From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>
                        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2012 8:48 AM
                        Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: The Singular Reading in Revelation 5:9

                         
                        George,

                        GS: "What kind of sense would that make?"

                        You're making my case for me; is your question not an acknowledgement that HMAS is the more difficult reading, and vulnerable to alternation by copyists wishing to remove the difficulty? You are basically saying (with Metzger) that a copyist intentionally made the text more difficult, and that this new, more-difficult reading became so popular as to find its way into every extant Greek copy of Revelation except Codex A (in which the word's absence is accounted for as a technical glitch in which HMAS was lost as the copyist moved from the bottom of one column to the top of the next one).

                        GS: "I neglected to mention the different placement of HMAS and even its being changed to HMWN."

                        HMWN, attested by six MSS (two of which are /vid/), is either the result of parablepsis in which the copyists' line of sight momentarily jumped to 5:10, or is an effect of bad handwriting. It is explicable as an accidental reading (although I suppose it is possible that a few copyists could have invented HMWN as an attempt to alleviate the difficulty posed by HMAS).

                        Regarding the different placement of HMAS: that data that Peter S. provided shows that a whole lot of MSS support TW QEW HMAS, and that 37 MSS support HMAS TW QEW. This sort of benign transposition is very, very frequent in NT MSS. Consider what Metzger is asserting has happened: even though the reading with HMAS is more difficult, he asserts that some copyists inserted HMAS before TW QEW and that some copyists inserted HUMAS after TW QEW, and that some copyists replaced TW QEW with HMAS. Can anyone read that without wondering why not a single copyist added AUTOUS?

                        GS: "This should tip us off to the fact that it was not a part of the original just as the PA appears in different locations."

                        Let's test that line of reasoning: in the vast majority of MSS, HMAS appears after TW QEW. In 37 MSS, HMAS appears after TW QEW. But instead of regarding this as the sort of benign transposition that routinely occurs throughout the NT text, you conclude that it shows that HMAS is not original. Let's see what would happen if you applied that line of reasoning to the other part of the transposition (i.e., TW QEW). In 20 MSS, HMAS is present but TW QEW is absent. If you applied your line of reasoning to TW QEW (instead of resorting to it selectively, when the external support for a favored reading is very limited and needs a bit of bolstering), you would have to draw the conclusion that the fact is that factually TW QEW is, in fact, not part of the original; the word-order variation and its absence in some MSS tips us off to the fact that it was inserted before HMAS by some copyists, and after HMAS by others.

                        Getting back to your first question: what sense would it make for the 24 elders to say "You have redeemed us to God by Your blood, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made them kings and priests upon the earth"? If the 24 elders represent deceased saints reigning in heaven, then their song means that they themselves have been redeemed by the Lamb, and that God has caused some other group – presumably Christians who have not yet died – to be kings and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.

                        Now here's something else which, istm, would strongly motivate a copyist to omit HMAS: in 5:8, the four living creatures are said to be singing along with the 24 elders. It seems perfectly clear that these living creatures are angelic beings. The idea that angels would say that they have been redeemed to God by the blood of the Lamb would be downright scandalous to copyists familiar with Hebrews 2:16. A case could probably made that if the non-inclusion of HMAS in Alexandrinus is not a simple scribal accident, then it is, to use Burgon's term, an "Orthodox corruption," intended to guard against the interpretation that the blood of Christ was applied to angels.

                        Yours in Christ,

                        James Snapp, Jr.



                      • ps2866@bingo-ev.de
                        Dear Friends, thank you, James, for the discussion of this verse! I agree with you. I think one could find reason that us makes sense besides the
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 4, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Friends,

                          thank you, James, for the discussion of this verse! I agree with you.

                          I think one could find reason that "us" makes sense besides the
                          overwhelming mss-support. The clause
                          "every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made them kings
                          and priests upon the earth"
                          may be seen as proper antecedent of "them" and not "us".

                          OR we could compare this song with the song of Mose, where the redeemed
                          group adresses themselfes by the third person plural (Ex 15). That makes a
                          more general sense and isn't bad grammar.

                          Yours
                          Peter M. Streitenberger

                          > George,
                          >
                          > GS: "What kind of sense would that make?"
                          >
                          > You're making my case for me; is your question not an acknowledgement that
                          > HMAS is the more difficult reading, and vulnerable to alternation by
                          > copyists wishing to remove the difficulty? You are basically saying (with
                          > Metzger) that a copyist intentionally made the text more difficult, and
                          > that this new, more-difficult reading became so popular as to find its way
                          > into every extant Greek copy of Revelation except Codex A (in which the
                          > word's absence is accounted for as a technical glitch in which HMAS was
                          > lost as the copyist moved from the bottom of one column to the top of the
                          > next one).
                          >
                          > GS: "I neglected to mention the different placement of HMAS and even its
                          > being changed to HMWN."
                          >
                          > HMWN, attested by six MSS (two of which are /vid/), is either the result
                          > of parablepsis in which the copyists' line of sight momentarily jumped to
                          > 5:10, or is an effect of bad handwriting. It is explicable as an
                          > accidental reading (although I suppose it is possible that a few copyists
                          > could have invented HMWN as an attempt to alleviate the difficulty posed
                          > by HMAS).
                          >
                          > Regarding the different placement of HMAS: that data that Peter S.
                          > provided shows that a whole lot of MSS support TW QEW HMAS, and that 37
                          > MSS support HMAS TW QEW. This sort of benign transposition is very, very
                          > frequent in NT MSS. Consider what Metzger is asserting has happened:
                          > even though the reading with HMAS is more difficult, he asserts that some
                          > copyists inserted HMAS before TW QEW and that some copyists inserted HUMAS
                          > after TW QEW, and that some copyists replaced TW QEW with HMAS. Can
                          > anyone read that without wondering why not a single copyist added AUTOUS?
                          >
                          > GS: "This should tip us off to the fact that it was not a part of the
                          > original just as the PA appears in different locations."
                          >
                          > Let's test that line of reasoning: in the vast majority of MSS, HMAS
                          > appears after TW QEW. In 37 MSS, HMAS appears after TW QEW. But instead
                          > of regarding this as the sort of benign transposition that routinely
                          > occurs throughout the NT text, you conclude that it shows that HMAS is not
                          > original. Let's see what would happen if you applied that line of
                          > reasoning to the other part of the transposition (i.e., TW QEW). In 20
                          > MSS, HMAS is present but TW QEW is absent. If you applied your line of
                          > reasoning to TW QEW (instead of resorting to it selectively, when the
                          > external support for a favored reading is very limited and needs a bit of
                          > bolstering), you would have to draw the conclusion that the fact is that
                          > factually TW QEW is, in fact, not part of the original; the word-order
                          > variation and its absence in some MSS tips us off to the fact that it was
                          > inserted before HMAS by some copyists, and after HMAS by others.
                          >
                          > Getting back to your first question: what sense would it make for the 24
                          > elders to say "You have redeemed us to God by Your blood, out of every
                          > tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made them kings and
                          > priests upon the earth"? If the 24 elders represent deceased saints
                          > reigning in heaven, then their song means that they themselves have been
                          > redeemed by the Lamb, and that God has caused some other group –
                          > presumably Christians who have not yet died – to be kings and priests to
                          > our God, and they shall reign on the earth.
                          >
                          > Now here's something else which, istm, would strongly motivate a copyist
                          > to omit HMAS: in 5:8, the four living creatures are said to be singing
                          > along with the 24 elders. It seems perfectly clear that these living
                          > creatures are angelic beings. The idea that angels would say that they
                          > have been redeemed to God by the blood of the Lamb would be downright
                          > scandalous to copyists familiar with Hebrews 2:16. A case could probably
                          > made that if the non-inclusion of HMAS in Alexandrinus is not a simple
                          > scribal accident, then it is, to use Burgon's term, an "Orthodox
                          > corruption," intended to guard against the interpretation that the blood
                          > of Christ was applied to angels.
                          >
                          > Yours in Christ,
                          >
                          > James Snapp, Jr.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • sarban
                          Hippolytus quotes a long passage from Revelation 5 in his Commentary on Daniel Book 4 Section 34 See:
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 5, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hippolytus quotes a long passage from Revelation 5 in his Commentary on Daniel Book 4 Section 34
                            See:
                             
                             
                             
                            Andrew Criddle
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Vox Verax
                            Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:56 AM
                            Subject: [textualcriticism] Revelation 5:9 - Alexandrinus Contra Mundum

                            <SNIP> 

                            Does anyone happen to know where exactly in the works of Hippolytus are his utilizations of Rev. 5:9-10?

                            Yours in Christ,

                            James Snapp, Jr.

                            .

                          • George F Somsel
                            Yes, and there he does render and purchased US for God … , but he then continues with and made a kingdom and priests rather than specifying them though
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 5, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Yes, and there he does render "and purchased US for God …", but he then continues with "and made a kingdom and priests" rather than specifying "them" though he does say "they shall reign …"
                               
                              george
                              gfsomsel

                              search for truth, hear truth,
                              learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                              defend the truth till death.

                              - Jan Hus
                              _________

                              From: sarban <sarban@...>
                              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2012 9:12 AM
                              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Revelation 5:9 - Alexandrinus Contra Mundum

                               
                              Hippolytus quotes a long passage from Revelation 5 in his Commentary on Daniel Book 4 Section 34
                              See:
                              http://www.chronicon.net/chroniconfiles/Hippolytus%20Commentary%20on%20Daniel%20by%20TC%20Schmidt.pdf
                               
                               
                               
                              Andrew Criddle
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Vox Verax
                              Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:56 AM
                              Subject: [textualcriticism] Revelation 5:9 - Alexandrinus Contra Mundum

                              <SNIP> 

                              Does anyone happen to know where exactly in the works of Hippolytus are his utilizations of Rev. 5:9-10?

                              Yours in Christ,

                              James Snapp, Jr.

                              .



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