Rev. 5:9 in Codex Alexandrinus - Textual Criticism and Manuscripts - Live Forums - Bible Versions Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Rev. 5:9 in Codex Alexandrinus

Author	Comment
HoLogos	Rev. 5:9 in Codex Alexandrinus	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1096 (08/26/2006 13:05:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None I ask you all if you agree with H. C. Hoskier's comment regarding the word hHMAS in Revelation 5:9. He says the word hHMAS was lost in the transition from one column to the next. The left-hand column ends with TW QEW, "for God," and the right-hand column begins with EN TW AIMATI SOU, "with your blood." Check it out yourself at the following link: The link to the right jpg at The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts is www.csntm.org/Manuscripts...2_129b.jpg In Revelation 5:9, Codex Alexandrinus (A), is the only Greek manuscript known to read HGORASAS TW QEW EN TW hAIMATI SOU. "purchased for God with your blood." This and the Ethiopic version are the only witnesses supporting the UBS4/NA27 text. Hoskier's exact words are "--HMAS A (perd. inter duas columnas)." (Most other Greek witnesses have hHMAS, "us," somewhere in some sequence in the verse; see below.) I see no gaps in the writing, and no flaws in the material. These are the variants, with the NA27 being the first one, and the method continues obviously: 1. HG. TW QEW 2. HG. TW QEW hHMWN 3. HG. TW QEW hHMAS 4. HG. hHMAS 5. HG. hHMAS TW QEW 6. HG. hHMAS TW QEW hHMWN 1. A eth NA27 2. 180 205 1854vid 2053comm 2079 2082* [corrected himself] 2256comp. vid 3. 01 046 209 1006 1352 1611 1841 1859 2020 2042 2053 2065c 2081 2138 2329 2351 2432 Byz copbo? Andrewa,p Arethas TR HF RP PK 4. 296 2028 2029 2033 2044 2054 2065* 2068 2069 2070 2083 2186 2305 2814 itz* vgms arm1 Iranaeuslatvid Cyprian Fulgentius Erasmus1,2,3 Aldus Colinaeus 5. 94 104 172 250 254 336 424 459 469 582 616 620 628 680 792 922 1746 1828 1862 1888 1918 2016 2018 2019 2032 2038 2050 2073 2084 2254 2344 2595 itar,gig vg syrph,h copbo? arm arab Hippolytus; Cyprian Maternus Augustine Varimadum Fulgensius Primasius Beatus 6. 205 (copsa) arm3 see 5:10 7. Hiant C P 051 88 1384 1704 1774 2022 2030 2062 2078 2091
Euthymius	Re: Rev. 5:9 in Codex Alexandrinus	#1	[-]
Posts: 2205 (08/28/2006 10:50:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	> I ask you all if you agree with H. C. Hoskier's comment Is Hoskier claiming "proof" or only expressing an opinion? I suspect the latter. After looking at the MS photo via the link, there certainly is no proof for Hoskier's contention, although it may be correct. At best, all one can say is that MS A does not include HMAS in Rev 5:9, and that the location where HMAS properly should have been would be at the top of the following page, given that the page ending with TW QW squares off evenly. So, perhaps Hoskier is correct, and perhaps during the transition between pages, the word accidentally may have been omitted; but equally, perhaps the exemplar of MS A already lacked the word, for whatever reason (one possibility: the exemplar of A could have read along with others HMAS TW QEW (your #5), in which case HMAS could have been omitted by homoioteleuton, skipping from -AS of HGORHSAS to the end of HMAS). I do think that Nestle-Aland/UBS/W-H stretch credulity a bit much when opting for the singular reading of MS A as the "original reading" at this point when HMAS (or HMWN) seems to be present in nearly every other witness in some form or another.
HoLogos	Re: Rev. 5:9 in Codex Alexandrinus	#2	[-]
Posts: 1096 (08/28/2006 14:39:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Is Hoskier claiming "proof" or only expressing an opinion? I suspect the latter. Yeah, he is probably expressing his opinion. After looking at the MS photo via the link, there certainly is no proof for Hoskier's contention, although it may be correct. At best, all one can say is that MS A does not include HMAS in Rev 5:9, and that the location where HMAS properly should have been would be at the top of the following page, given that the page ending with TW QW squares off evenly. I agree. So, perhaps Hoskier is correct, and perhaps during the transition between pages, the word accidentally may have been omitted; but equally, perhaps the exemplar of MS A already lacked the word, for whatever reason (one possibility: the exemplar of A could have read along with others HMAS TW QEW (your #5), in which case HMAS could have been omitted by homoioteleuton, skipping from -AS of HGORHSAS to the end of HMAS). I'll have to look at that, but sounds reasonable. I do think that Nestle-Aland/UBS/W-H stretch credulity a bit much when opting for the singular reading of MS A as the "original reading" at this point when HMAS (or HMWN) seems to be present in nearly every other witness in some form or another. Yes, I think it is a stretch to follow so few manuscripts. But, I know their reasons, and the reasons make sense. Either way, this passage is awkward. As the NA27 has it, you have an awkward phrase "redeemed some for God with your blood." But it is also awkward the way the Byz text has it; you have the 24 elders saying "redeemed us" for God, but then they seem to exclude themselves when they change the person to 3rd, "made them a kingdom and priests, and they will reign on the earth." I posted this question on the TC mailing list a few days ago, and did not get a single reply. That is very strange, in my opinion. If they do not want to discuss this kind of thing, what in the world do they want to discuss?
StevenAvery		#3	[-]
Posts: 324 (12/10/2008 05:08:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hi Folks, Revelation 5:9 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, (unto God - NASV) and tongue, and people, and nation Revelation 5:10 "And hast made us [hemas] unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." ........................ them [autous] (NASV) .................................. (they reign - NASV) Euthymius wrote: Nestle-Aland/UBS/W-H stretch credulity a bit much when opting for the singular reading of MS A as the "original reading" at this point when HMAS (or HMWN) seems to be present in nearly every other witness in some form or another. What is even stranger is how (according to the supurb posts on PuritanBoard by Steve Rafalsky) they raised their probability from a "C" to an "A" and then used this ill-supported variant to support their text in verse 10. Amazing stuff, if you like to be hoodwinked by textual shenanigans. http://www.puritanboard.com/278978-post5.html Revelation 5:9-10 1st Person ("us") or 3rd Person ("them")? - 06/2007 http://www.puritanboard.c...an-kurschner-aomin-24839/ Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin - 09/2007 And from an eschatological/doctrinal viewpoint this is a very significant Critical Text corruption, their illogic is the stunning aspect of the study. Shalom, Steven Avery Last Edited By: StevenAvery 12/10/2008 05:11:54. Edited 1 times.
mko		#4	[-]
Posts: 393 (12/10/2008 05:24:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Looked on Unbound Bible for the Greek texts they had. Estienne (TR): και εποιησας ημας τω θεω ημων βασιλεις και ιερεις και βασιλευσομεν επι της γης Scrivener (TR): και εποιησας ημας τω θεω ημων βασιλεις και ιερεις και βασιλευσομεν επι της γης RP (MT): και εποιησας αυτους τω θεω ημων βασιλεις και ιερεις και βασιλευσουσιν επι της γης WH (CT): και εποιησας αυτους τω θεω ημων βασιλειαν και ιερεις και βασιλευουσιν επι της γης NA (CT): και εποιησας αυτους τω θεω ημων βασιλειαν και ιερεις και βασιλευσουσιν επι της γης "Things don't happen together by coincidence, without the hand of God guiding them. Like, say, your ex-girlfriend hunting you down for a date the minute you give up on love, with an eye on the altar."

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Rules Page