Re: Word division in Revelation 17:8
- Daniel Buck wrote:
< In the TR, the final portion of Rev. 17:8 reads: KAIPAR ESTAI.
In every other Greek text I know of it reads: KAI PARESTAI.
And given this manifest latitude in translation, is there really
any fundamental difference in the two readings?
Secondly, since word division does not typically play a role in
Greek textual criticism, is there MS evidence for one reading over
the other, or was the decision made strictly on internal grounds?>
Martin Heide responded:
>>minuscule Codex Reuchlini (Ms 1r or Greg 2049), a manuscript ofthe so-called Andreas-commentary group (MA).
KAIPER ESTI resulted from a careless written KAI PARESTI (the
reading of the Andreas-commentary-group in that verse which was
intended by the scribe of codex 1r, while the reading preferred
today is generally KAI PARESTAI = majority text), with more space
inbetween than usual.
It appears to the eye as KAI PAR ESTI.
That's why Erasmus created a new reading in
combining the wrong "fragments" and changing one vowel; he read
KAIPER ESTI. Later editions of the Received Text have the reading
This reading is unique to the Received Text and appears nowhere else.
Now, KAIPER ESTI(N) means "and yet is" (KJV), while KAI PARESTIN
must or may be translated "and it is present">>
I apologize, I gave the wrong reading for Erasmus. Thanks for
correcting me. But did you make the same mistake with KAI PARESTIN?
I'll try to restate this:
1)The reading in 1r was KAI PAR ESTI (and of it is--nonsense reading)
2)Erasmus published it as KAIPER ESTI(N) (although it is)
3)The majority reading, however, is KAI PARESTAI (and it is present)
1r had a mispelled and poorly divided reading that didn't make
sense; Erasmus conjectured an original of KAIPER ESTI(N), which
turns out to lack any support whatsoever. The true reading turns out
to be overwhelmingly supported as KAI PARESTAI.
But whence the future tense in so many English translations?
Nestle-Marshall Interlinear: KAI PARESTAI = and is present
W/H-Goodspeed diglot: KAI PARESTAI = and yet is to come
RV: and shall come
NASB: and will come
NIV: and yet will come
Darby: and shall be present
Obviously, the context begs for the future tense here, but the
grounds for so translating it are apparently not textual.
Since the TR is a vulgatized edition, I'd better give the Vulgate
reading here, for those who know Latin:
"mirabuntur inhabitantes terram quorum non sunt scripta nomina in
libro vitae a constitutione mundi videntes bestiam quia erat et non
Thus reads the source text of the Douay Rheims version; apparently
some Latin MSS add "et aderit", which I believe, however it may be
translated, is the very phrase in question.
Here, I just found a website that gives all the various editions.
There are actually over half a dozen variants just in this verse!
And here's another word-division problem in the TR: O TI HN for OTI
HN. Does it affect the meaning any?