Academic views on Revelation 17:8

Discussion regarding KJV-onlyism. Debate central, but keep it civil. The ONLY forum where KJV-onlyism is allowed to be debated.

brandpluckt
Registered User
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 19:26

03 Jun 2017, 20:44 #1

Dr. Edward Hills (a KJV defender).

Edward Hills: "The few typographical errors which still remain in the Textus Receptus of Revelation do not involve important readings. This fact, clearly attributable to God's special providence, can be demonstrated by a study of H. C. Hoskier's monumental commentary on Revelation (1929), (19) which takes the Textus Receptus as its base. Here we see that the only typographical error worth noting occurs in Rev.17:8, the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Codex 1r the manuscript which Erasmus used in Revelation." [King James Version Defended, Christian Research Press, 4th edition, 1984, p. 202]

This carries weight since the author acknowledged these facts in a book designed to defend the KJV.

William Combs concurs, “No Greek manuscript reads “and yet is...” Further he states, “This error, and a few others, derive from the circumstances surrounding the production of Eramsus’ Greek NT (1516). For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had access to only one manuscript (1r). However, this was not really a separate manuscript of the text of Revelation but was actually imbedded in a commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. As such it was difficult for the printer to read the text itself, so Erasmus had a fresh copy of the text made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text. In Rev 17:8 the copyist mistakenly wrote καίπερ ἔστιν (“and yet is”) instead of καὶ παρέσται (“and shall come”). This is an indisputable error in the KJV and the Greek text (TR) that underlies it. Interestingly, Edward F. Hills, who was one of the leading exponents of the KJV, admitted that this is an error.” [William W. Combs, “Errors in the King James Version?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 4 (1999): 155–156.”

He reiterates the truth that “no Greek manuscript reads ‘and yet is.” Note that “a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.” ‘This is an indisputable error,” Combs says, except for KJVOs. They hold an a priori view of the reinspiration of the KJV. He mentions MS 1(r) G-A Number 2814. This was the only copy Erasmus had for the book of Revelation. For many years, this manuscript was lost until Franz Delitzsch rediscovered the text in the middle of the 18th century. (See Krans, Beyond What is Written, p. 54). According to Krans, Delitzsch meticulously described Erasmus’ treatment of the book of Revelation. His greatest criticism was “the fact that Erasmus did not bother to emend the text.” The manuscript is still available to scholars and it is still cited in the N-A apparatus.

Nestle confirms this fact, “As early as 1734, J. A. Bengel recognised that in the Apocalypse   p 4  Erasmus must have used only one manuscript, and that partly mutilated, so that he was unable to read it correctly and was obliged to supply its lacunæ by means of a retranslation from the Latin into Greek. And this conclusion was confirmed in 1861 by the rediscovery of that very manuscript by Franz Delitzsch in the Oettingen-Wallerstein Library at Mayhingen.” [Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. William Edie (London; New York; Edinburgh; Oxford: Williams and Norgate, 1901), p. 3–4.]

Therefore, we have names, dates, and places!

Roland Bainton leveled the same criticism against Erasmus. “The editing of this book [Revelation] was the most unsatisfactory of the entire production. Erasmus had but one manuscript with interlinear comments in Greek. The text had, therefore, to be extracted and copied freshly for the printer. Erasmus committed this task to an assistant, who made errors in transcription, which Erasmus did not take time to check for the first edition, nor adequately at any time.” [Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, Charles Scribner, 1968, p. 133.]

Erasmus was not interested in adequately editing the book of Revelation, nor did he.

Krans further writes, “One of the Erasmian blunders was in the Nestle editions, originally as part of Nestle’s publicity campaign towards the British and Foreign Bible Society which in 1900 was still printing and selling an edition of the Textus Receptus (cf. Nestle, Textus Receptus, pp. 10.11). It concerns Rev 17:8, where min. 2814 reads καὶ παρέσται. Erasmus edited it as the ungrammatical καίπερ ἔστιν  which is mentioned in N3–12 under ς (the siglum for TR) and in N13–25 under ‘Erasm’. It is also mentioned in Nestle, Einführung, 21899, pp. 7–8.” [Krans, p. 54 footnote 6] 

Note the Nestle had a publicity campaign and used the reading of Revelation 17:8 against the TR. This should have provided ample response to Nestle. If it did, where is the response?  

Note also that the reading of the TR at Revelation 17:8 is “ungrammatical.” 

Here is the section of Nestle’s book: “...We find also constructions like οὐκ ἔστι, καίπερ ἐστίν, in c. 17:8, where, however, the accentuation ἐστίν makes Erasmus responsible for an additional error he did not commit, seeing that he at least printed ἔστιν. Every college lad knows that καίπερ is construed with the participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will see just at once that καὶ πάρεστι is the correct reading.” [Nestle, p. 4, footnote 1] 
Ken Willy
Reply

katoog
Registered User
Joined: 25 Oct 2015, 17:40

04 Jun 2017, 08:17 #2

Now you are calling Jan Krans a liar where before you said Hoskier was a
liar (and it appears that you were wrong.) Krans' book is available.
By  Hoskier did I use the word "IF"And yes: Jan Krans is a liar and you should first doing research by looking to the scans of Erasmus and Hoskier instead of repeating his lies.Krans:

It concerns Rev 17:8, where min. 2814 reads καὶ παρέσται. Erasmus edited it as the ungrammatical καίπερ ἔστιν  

You liar. min. 2814 reads καί παρἔστι and Erasmus has καί περ ἔστι and καί περ ἔστιν follow Hoskier.___
Last edited by katoog on 06 Jun 2017, 15:36, edited 9 times in total.
Reply

brandpluckt
Registered User
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 19:26

04 Jun 2017, 18:50 #3

Nestle:"so that he was unable to read it correctly and was obliged to supply its lacunæ by means of a retranslation from the Latin into Greek".

katoog: But the Latin sources omitted the phrase. They have "quæ erat, et non est."  (that was, and is not.)
So claiming that Erasmus used Latin sources is a lie.

Once again you jump to the wrong conclusion. The referent is not the specific verse Revelation 17:8, but the manuscript itself- MS 1(r) or ms 2814. It specifically refers to the ending of Revelation. So it is not a lie. (This tells me a great deal about you- by the way.) It underscores your inability to read in context. These men are not lying, so let's dispense with the ad hominem.

Find Nestle's book and read it. I'm sure it is in the public domain. 

katoog" The TR that the KJV used is not the first edition of Erasmus. The errors are corrected.

That is false. A few are and additional errors were introduced (like Beza's rendition of Revelation 16:5).

Please get William Comb's article and read it, (so you can come back here and call him a liar I suppose).

Every time that you make an error can I call you a "lying reprobate" for fun?

Now you are calling Jan Krans a liar where before you said Hoskier was a liar (and it appears that you were wrong.) Krans' book is available. 
Last edited by brandpluckt on 04 Jun 2017, 18:53, edited 1 time in total.
Ken Willy
Reply

brandpluckt
Registered User
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 19:26

04 Jun 2017, 19:08 #4

In the OP, I made an error regarding Delitzsch's research. It was in the middle of the 19th century and not the 18th century. The mistake was mine and not Krans' error. He spelled out "nineteenth century." Nestle gives the exact year "1861."
Ken Willy
Reply

mko
Registered User
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 08:04

04 Jun 2017, 21:20 #5

Erasmus' Latin text, and I think this is the third edition:

"Bestia quam vidisti, fuit, et non est, et ascensura est de abysso, et in interitum ibit, et mirabuntur inhabitantes terram: quorum nomina scripta non sunt in libro vitae, a condito mundo, videntes bestiam, quae erat, et non est." ("The beast which you saw was, and is not, and is to arise from the abyss, and will go into destruction; and the inhabitants of the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, beholding the beast who was, and is not.")

It's not quite the same wording as the Vulgate, but it's almost the same.
Test everything; hold to that which is found good. 1 Thessalonians 5.21
Reply

brandpluckt
Registered User
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 19:26

04 Jun 2017, 21:22 #6

"To this day the word ἀκαθάρτητος is printed in their editions at Apoc. 17:4, though there is no such word in the Greek language as ἀκαθάρτης, meaning uncleanness." [Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. William Edie (London; New York; Edinburgh; Oxford: Williams and Norgate, 1901, p. 4, fn. 1).]

As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six verses, Erasmus turned these into Greek from the Latin; and some portions of his self-made version, which are found (however some editors may speak vaguely) in no one known Greek manuscript whatever, still cleave to our received text (1). [Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, ed. Edward Miller, vol. 2, Fourth Edition. (London; New York; Cambridge: George Bell & Sons; Deighton Bell & Co., 1894), p. 183–184]

Fn. 1: Such are ὀρθρινός, Apoc. 22. ver. 16; ἐλθέ bis ἐλθέτω, λαμβαν̇έτω τό, ver. 17; συμμαρτυροῦμαι γάρ, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,—τῷ (ante βιβλίῳ) ver. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βἰβλου, ἀφαιρήσει, βἰβλου secund., καί ult.—τῶ (ante βιβλίῳ) ver. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, ver. 21. Erasmus in his Annotations fairly confesses what he did: ‘quanquam in calce hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.’ But since the text and commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript (Tregelles’ ‘Delitzsch’s Handschriftliche Funde,’ Part ii. pp. 2–7), it is no wondor that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. 2:2, 17; 3:5, 12, 15; 6:11, 15 (see under Apoc. 1); 7:17; 13:4, 5; 14:16; 21:16; 22:11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false; while in ch. 2:3; 5:14 (bis); 6:1, 3, 5, 7; 13:10; 14:5 (as partly in 22:14), he was misled by the recent copies of the Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel’s acuteness had long before suspected that ch. 5:14; 22:11, and the form ἀκαθάρτητος, ch. 17:4 (where Apoc. 1 has τὰ ἀκάθαρτα) had their origin in no Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any countenance to ch. 17:8, καίπερ ἔστι, or to ver. 13, διαδιδώσουσιν. For Erasmus’ πληρώσονται ch. 6:11, Apoc. 1 has πληρώσωσιν, the Latin impleantur; for his σφραγίζωμεν, ch. 7:3, we find σφραγίσωμεν in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits τῆς ἀμπέλου, ch. 14:18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.

I am pretty sure that this is the reference in Comb's article. "For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript (1r). Since the text of Revelation was imbedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and thus difficult for the printer to read, Erasmus had a fresh copy made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.(52) For example, in Revelation 17:4 Codex 1r and all other Greek manuscripts have the word ἀκάθαρτα (“impure”), but Erasmus’ text reads ἀκαθάρτητος, a word unknown in Greek literature. [William W. Combs, “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 1 (1996): p.46.]

fn. 52: Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament, p. 38. Some of these errors can conveniently be found in Frederick H. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1874), pp. 382–83, n. 2.

I do not have the 2nd edition of Scrivener but I believe the above from the 4th edition, Volume 2 is similar material. 

Erasmus has ἀκάθαρτητος (Rev. 17:4) So does Stephanus and Beza (5th edition). Min. 2814 reads like every other GNT [ἀκάθαρτα] extant today with the exception of the TR

Hey katoog! Looks like Erasmus is a liar!

"Not only did Erasmus retranslate the final verses of the book from Latin into Greek, he did so for many words and phrases found elsewhere.(7)" [Krans, p.54]
Fn. 7: "Delitzsch, Handschrifliche Funde, 1, passim. Cf. Scrivener, Introduction, 2, p. 184 n. 1. Some striking examples, by no means exhaustive, of omissions in min. 2814 that are restored by Erasmus:"

He quotes Rev 2:2; 2:17; 2:20; 3:12; 6:11; 22: 11. Krans says the list is by no means exhaustive. (See the book for the full reference.)

Further Krans reports, “Delitzsch considers this procedure to be a scandalous falsification of the text and an inadmissible way of tampering with the Greek.” [Krans, pp. 54-55]

Have fun finding "lies."
Ken Willy
Reply

katoog
Registered User
Joined: 25 Oct 2015, 17:40

06 Jun 2017, 05:37 #7

For
example, in Revelation 17:4 Codex 1r and all other Greek manuscripts
have the word ἀκάθαρτα (“impure”), but Erasmus’ text reads ἀκαθάρτητος, a
word unknown in Greek literature. [William W. Combs, “Erasmus and the
Textus Receptus,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 1 (1996):
p.46.]

 

To prove that and all other Greek manuscripts have the word ἀκάθαρτα" is a lie.

HoskierApokalypseRevelation_text.pdf page 448 under "inmunditia et sordibus"

 

ακαθαρτητας syrΣ, ακαθαρτητος

(-και ακαθαρτητος)bohADN,

 

ακαθαρτηιων

ακαθαρτητος arm, pl

 

And the typos of 84 (ακαρθαρτα) and 90 [non 51] (ακαθαρματα).

 

___

Agian the KJV nor the other TR translations are not based on the Latin of the last six verses of Revelations.

And support also in Latin is rather more evidence.


Because you claim that you are a Byz fan use I it as default to show
how much textual variants there still are in modern versions(accents and
puntation, Movable Nu removed, lower case )

 

Rev 22:16 
εγω ιησους επεμψα τον αγγελον μου μαρτυρησαι υμιν ταυτα επι ταις
εκκλησιαις εγω ειμι η ριζα και το γενος δαυιδ ο αστηρ ο λαμπρος ο πρωινος (RP2005,NA26, OC, f35)

Rev 22:16  εγω ιησους επεμψα τον αγγελον μου μαρτυρησαι υμιν ταυτα επι ταις εκκλησιαις εγω ειμι η ριζα και το γενος του δαυιδ ο αστηρ ο λαμπρος και ορθρινος (RTR beta)

Rev 22:16  ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus David stella splendida et matutina 

 

"The" David sounds not as Latin (Latin omit articles) but "et"(and) is supported.

 

Rev 22:17 
και το πνευμα και η νυμφη λεγουσιν ερχου και ο ακουων ειπατω ερχου και ο
διψων ερχεσθω ο θελων λαβετω υδωρ ζωης δωρεαν (RP2005,NA26,f35)

Rev 22:17  και το πνευμα και η νυμφη λεγουσιν ερχου και ο ακουων ειπατω ερχου και ο διψων ερχεσθω και ο θελων λαβετω υδωρ ζωης δωρεαν  (OC)

Rev 22:17  και το πνευμα και η νυμφη λεγουσιν ελθε και ο ακουων ειπατω ελθε και ο διψων ελθετω και ο θελων λαμβανετω το υδωρ ζωης δωρεαν (RTR beta)

Rev 22:17 et Spiritus et sponsa dicunt veni et qui audit dicat veni et qui sitit veniat qui vult accipiat aquam vitae gratis 

 

The
TR used Second Aorist imperative and the RP2005, NA26,f35, OC used
Present Indicative. The there is no fourth "et"(and) in Latin. venu is
the iMperative of veni so the Greek of the TR is not based on Latin.

 

Rev 22:18  μαρτυρω εγω παντι τω ακουοντι τους λογους της προφητειας του βιβλιου τουτου εαν τις επιθη επ αυτα επιθησαι ο θεος επ αυτον τας πληγας τας γεγραμμενας εν τω βιβλιω τουτω (RP2005)

Rev 22:18  μαρτυρω εγω παντι ακουοντι τους λογους της προφητειας του βιβλιου τουτου εαν τις επιθη επ αυτα επιθησαι επ αυτον ο θεος τας επτα πληγας τας γεγραμμενας εν τω βιβλιω τουτω  (f35)

Rev 22:18 μαρτυρω εγω παντι τω ακουοντι τους λογους της προφητειας του βιβλιου τουτου εαν τις επιθη επ αυτα επιθησει ο θεος επ αυτον τας πληγας τας γεγραμμενας εν τω βιβλιω τουτω (NA26, OC)

Rev 22:18 συμμαρτυρουμαι γαρ παντι ακουοντι τους λογους της προφητειας του βιβλιου τουτου εαν τις επιτιθη προς ταυτα επιθησει ο θεος επ αυτον τας πληγας τας γεγραμμενας εν βιβλιω τουτω (RTR beta)

Rev 22:18  contestor ego omni audienti verba prophetiae libri huius si quis adposuerit ad haec adponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto 

 

επιθησει is "shall add" but επιθησαι is add in Aorist tense. The TR is here closer to Latin.

 

Rev 22:19  και εαν τις αφελη απο των λογων του βιβλιου της προφητειας ταυτης αφελοι ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο του ξυλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας των γεγραμμενων εν τω βιβλιω τουτω (RP2005,f35)

Rev 22:19 και εαν τις αφελη απο των λογων του βιβλιου της προφητειας ταυτης αφελει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο του ξυλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας των γεγραμμενων εν τω βιβλιω τουτω (NA26,OC)

Rev 22:19 και εαν τις αφαιρη απο των λογων βιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης αφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο βιβλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας και των γεγραμμενων εν βιβλιω τουτω (RTR beta)

Rev 22:19 et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto

 

Here is the TR very close to Latin and the controverse between "Book of Life" and "Tree of Life".

 

Rev 22:20  λεγει ο μαρτυρων ταυτα ναι ερχομαι ταχυ αμην ναι ερχου κυριε ιησου (RP2005, OC, f35, RTR beta, Erasmus)

Rev 22:20 λεγει ο μαρτυρων ταυτα ναι ερχομαι ταχυ αμην ερχου κυριε ιησου (NA26)

Rev 22:20 dicit qui testimonium perhibet istorum etiam venio cito amen veni Domine Iesu 

 

"yes" in the TR and Latin as the majoriry text here unlike the NA26.

 

Rev 22:21 η χαρις του κυριου ιησου χριστου μετα παντων των αγιων αμην  (RP2005, f35)

Rev 22:21 η χαρις του κυριου ιησου [χριστου] μετα παντων των αγιων αμην (OC)

Rev 22:21 η χαρις του κυριου ιησου μετα παντων. (NA26)

Rev 22:21 η χαρις του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου μετα παντων υμων αμην (RTR beta)

Rev 22:21 gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi cum omnibus 

 

The TR is closer to Latin here but Latin lacks Amen.

 

Rev 22:21  The grace of Lord Jesus Christ be with the Saints. Amen! (RP2005, f35)

Rev 22:21  The grace of Lord Christ be with the Saints. Amen! (RP2005, f35)

Rev 22:21  The grace of Lord Jesus be with all. Amen! (NA26)

Rev 22:21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen! (TR)

Rev 22:21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all. (Latin)

__

katoog" The TR that the KJV used is not the first edition of Erasmus. The errors are corrected.
That is false. A few are and additional errors were introduced (like Beza's rendition of Revelation 16:5).

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/translatio ... lation-165

 
Last edited by katoog on 06 Jun 2017, 15:08, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Euthymius
Registered User
Joined: 14 Jun 2005, 02:41

06 Jun 2017, 18:26 #8

k2g: ακαθαρτητας syrΣ, ακαθαρτητος(-και ακαθαρτητος)bohADN,

Totally Misreading Hoskier here: 

He actually says syrΣ reads ακαθαρσιας, while ακαθαρτητος is the reading of aeth.

Also, bohADN omits entirely the phrase και ακαθαρτητος (note the "--" preceding that entry).
 
k2g: ακαθαρτηιων

This isn't even a word. Do you mean ακαθαρσιων, read by sah and boh8/12 ?

Perhaps better familiarity with Hoskier's apparatus might help.


 
Reply

brandpluckt
Registered User
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 19:26

07 Jun 2017, 23:06 #9

 ἀκαθάρτης, ητος, ἡ uncleanness τ. πορνείας Rv 17:4 t.r., a reading composed by Erasmus. The word does not otherwise exist (s. ἀκάθαρτος 2).—RBorger, TRu 52, ’87, 57. [BDAG]

Once again katoog, you are sadly mistaken. 
Or, the whole world has conspired against you to perpetrate a vast conspiracy of lies. Image

I also fail to follow your line of argumentation. You do not believe the KJV or the TR are inerrant, so why waste all this energy?

"Methinks thou dost protest too much."

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/translatio ... lation-165

Thanks for the KJVO nonsense. Do you really think they would admit an error in the KJV?
Ken Willy
Reply

amarillo
Registered User
Joined: 03 Jul 1999, 00:56

08 Jun 2017, 09:22 #10

brandpluckt wrote:
 ἀκαθάρτης, ητος, ἡ uncleanness τ. πορνείας Rv 17:4 t.r., a reading composed by Erasmus. The word does not otherwise exist (s. ἀκάθαρτος 2).—RBorger, TRu 52, ’87, 57. [BDAG]

Once again katoog, you are sadly mistaken. 
Or, the whole world has conspired against you to perpetrate a vast conspiracy of lies. Image

I also fail to follow your line of argumentation. You do not believe the KJV or the TR are inerrant, so why waste all this energy?

"Methinks thou dost protest too much."

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/translatio ... lation-165

Thanks for the KJVO nonsense. Do you really think they would admit an error in the KJV?
it does seem he's been trying to demonstrate, with increasingly underwhelming success, that it's not really that necessary for one to learn Greek or English to lecture those who know either.
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."
Ps 119:89 KJB
Reply