Hi, Revelation 5:9-10 (AV) And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast
Message 1 of 1
, Aug 4, 2012
Revelation 5:9-10 (AV)
And they sung a new song, saying,
Thou art worthy to take the book,
and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain,
and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred,
and tongue, and people, and nation;
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests:
and we shall reign on the earth.
Some interesting discussions have been going
on about these two verses. On this forum, I note that
scribe-reading is a major part of the discussion, when
really on this verse it is even more worthless than normal,
Requiring you to delve into your theories 1st and 2nd century
eschatological thinking, perhaps angelology too (where is that Edersheim
section ?) and you can dash that up with your soteriology ... and easily
allowing the same evidences to be interpreted in opposite directions, for
On a far simpler level, authorial consistency, Steve Rafalsky,
referencing Jack Moorman, points out:
Revelation 5:9-10 1st Person
("us") or 3rd Person ("them")?
Steve Rafalsky - 6-18-2007
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/revelation-5-9-10-1st-person-us-3rd-person-them-22409/#post278978 And that is with made us
hmaj vs. madest them
autouj of the Andreas group of mss and the
046 group, respectively. Before comparing the merits of these two groups,
let me mention that, as Moorman notes, There is no previous mention as
to who them would be; us refers to the 24 elders representing the
church before the throne. He says the same regarding the they reign we
looked at previously.
Granted, in the subset wild world of modern
no-faith-consideration textual criticism, authorial consistency
can be considered a negative attribute. However that particularly
scholastic convolution, to argue for the weaker and inconsistent text as
original, is not the purpose of this post.
In this we see the advocate of Hort's system, and his assertion that
the extremes which he mentions are not inherent in it is open to
question. If it may possibly be true (and in fact is true) that Hort
himself was guilty of those
extremes----if it may possibly be
true (and in fact is true) that others were guilty of the same when they
followed him----what is this but the
practical admission that those extremes belong to Hort's system? Hort's
system was Codex B, and he must be very naive who can believe that his
elaborate textual theories were anything other than the means by which to
establish the authority of Codex B and its allies.
Cod. B and its characteristic peculiarities are never out of the
author's mind, and those lines of thought are closely followed which most
readily lead up to the theory of that manuscript's practical
impeccability. (Scrivener, Introd., 3rd. ed., p. 541).
As infatuation with Codex Aleph was Tischendorf's peculiarity,
infatuation with Codex B was Hort's. The real animus of his system was
the determination to overthrow the common text----all distinctively
Syrian readings must be at once rejected, says Hort (Introd., pg.
119)----and the modern adherents of that school have carried it to yet
further extremes. They do not require Aleph or B, but will take almost
anything against the common text. In one of the readings mentioned above,
Jesus Barabbas in Matt. 27:17, they take Theta alone of the old
uncials, against AlephABDKLW 064, against most of the ancient versions
also, and, of course, against the whole mass of cursives, and against the
Received Text. I have pointed out in these pages before that they take A
alone (against even Aleph) in Revelation 5:9. Examples of this sort serve
to illustrate how little there is of objective criticism among modern
critics. They will take almost anything as evidence, so long as it
overturns the common text.
Glenn Conjurske had gone into some of this back in 1993-4.
The Crowned Elders
http://www.straitegate.com/oldepathsfolder/op93dec.htm .....But A is not the only old uncial which gives its testimony
here. The celebrated Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) speaks also ---- and
speaks for the insertion of ---- speaks, that is, for the reading
"thou hast redeemed us ." 'Tis strange that the critics
here desert for A, (for they generally give the greater weight to
). But perhaps not so strange ---- for in this place stands with
the great bulk of the cursive manuscripts, and with the Textus Receptus,
while A stands against them. May I venture an opinion? If (as
is more usual) A had stood with the common text, and Aleph against it,
the critics would have followed Aleph, as they usually do. But
regardless of that, the fact is, "us" in this verse has the
support of almost every witness in the world, ancient and modern, uncial
and cursive, versions and manuscripts, so that its absence from the
various critical editions of the Greek New Testament can prove only one
thing, namely, the prevailing infatuation which reigns in that field, and
its determination to overturn the common Greek text. ...
And again, you do not have to agree with
his eschatology to get the basic textual riff, which is very
A full account and collation of the Greek
cursive codex Evangelium 604 (Egerton 2610 in the British Museum):
with two facsimiles : together with ten appendices (1890)
Herman Charles Hoskier
(pic of Hoskier verse and 2 paragraphs)
Note that proclivi scriptioni praestat
ardua (aka lectio difficilior) is one of those canons that is easily
used to convenience. So I do not see this as an issue of applying the
canon, simply letting the text fall correctly on the overwhelming
external evidence, which stands quite sensibly with the super-majority
reading. So you get verse 9 clearly and obviously right, sufficient
for the day is the textual difficulty thereof, and then you can seek to
puzzle out verse 10.
For advanced studies, discussing from the evangelical perspective,
earlier Steve Rafalsky (one url and quote is above) battled with the
Alexandrinus (Hortian) position of Alan Kurshner of aomin.org, the
organization of James White. On this Revelation 5:9 textual question. An
interesting discussion on the net, mostly on Puritanboard and aomin.org.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.