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

Re: Word division in Revelation 17:8

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    Daniel Buck wrote:
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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 of
      the 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?

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