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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: The Singular Reading in Revelation 5:9

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.