Skip to content

Revelation 8:6

I concur that Schmid is a good resource on the text of Revelation. I also found that Hoskier was a great resource when working with this text. Hoskier, Herman Charles. Concerning the text of the Apocalypse: collations of all existing available Greek documents with the standard text of Stephen's third edition, together with the testimony of versions, commentaries and fathers; a complete conspectus of all authorities Vol. 1. 2 vols., 1929. Regarding the Byzantine text tradition, at least some of the variation here can be attributed to the fact that Revelation does not appear at all in the lectionary tradition of the Church. We find much greater consistency in the texts that are regularly used in the liturgical services. Statistics: Posted by spuluka — February 28th, 2014, 10:51 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: Does anyone have master list of the members of M^A and M^K?
Revelation is not my bailiwick but I think that the standard work is still Josef Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des Griechischen Apokalypse-Textes (1956). Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 28th, 2014, 1:24 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote: The Byzantine text is generally uniform throughout the NT with two major exceptions: Revelation and the Pericope Adultera. The major branches of the Byzantine text in Revelation are cited as M^A and M^K in NA26+ so you can look up which branch RP chose for the text and which one they chose for the margin.
Yes but it doesn't appear that the documents assigned to M^A and M^K all line up neatly in the variation units in Revelation. Does anyone have master list of the members of M^A and M^K? I am having a "discussion" of sorts over this with the folks I am working with on Revelation and Acts. It appears that listing a long line of minuscules is odious simply because it takes up too much space. They want a comprehensive list of early citations from christian literature which will be reduced to Qxxx numbers that nobody else uses. This is also a minor point of contention. The names of the fathers are familiar to a lot of people, however these numbers will be like Hoskier's numbers for the Apocalypse, totally foreign to everyone. Anyway, all of this is not b-greek so I will desist. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — February 28th, 2014, 11:45 am
The Byzantine text is generally uniform throughout the NT with two major exceptions: Revelation and the Pericope Adultera. The major branches of the Byzantine text in Revelation are cited as M^A and M^K in NA26+ so you can look up which branch RP chose for the text and which one they chose for the margin. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 28th, 2014, 10:22 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:This source - as Maubrey (I recall) pointed out - doesn't include the Byzantine tradition, so at present doesn't give a very definitive overview of text forms.
Unlike the other books of the NT, there isn't a single, fairly uniform Byzantine tradition in Revelation. The textual history of this work is considerably more complicated than in the rest of the NT.
I that lack of uniformity checkable in this instance? Robinson and Pierpont (2005) present it as a neat text.
Not that neat--look at all the variant readings in the margins, which are of equal worth. For more details, you should consult their preface on p. xii in the section that begins with:
RP 2005:xii wrote: The establishment of the Byzantine text of the Apocalypse is a task far more complex than that which exists in the greater part of the New Testament. The dominant Apocalypse text appears in two related but distinct transmissional lines within the Byzantine tradition. These forms are generally known as Αν and Q, each supported by an approximately equal number of manuscripts. The Αν readings predominate in manuscripts that contain or derive from the fourth-century commentary of Andreas of Caesarea (Cappadocia). The Q readings predominate in manuscripts related to the uncial 046.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 28th, 2014, 8:04 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote: This source - as Maubrey (I recall) pointed out - doesn't include the Byzantine tradition, so at present doesn't give a very definitive overview of text forms.
Yes it doesn't, at least not yet.
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Unlike the other books of the NT, there isn't a single, fairly uniform Byzantine tradition in Revelation. The textual history of this work is considerably more complicated than in the rest of the NT.
I that lack of uniformity checkable in this instance? Robinson and Pierpont (2005) present it as a neat text.
Is the text you have the same as at https://sites.google.com/a/wmail.fi/gre ... knt/rp2005? Statistics: Posted by David Lim — February 28th, 2014, 5:28 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:This source - as Maubrey (I recall) pointed out - doesn't include the Byzantine tradition, so at present doesn't give a very definitive overview of text forms.
Unlike the other books of the NT, there isn't a single, fairly uniform Byzantine tradition in Revelation. The textual history of this work is considerably more complicated than in the rest of the NT.
I that lack of uniformity checkable in this instance? Robinson and Pierpont (2005) present it as a neat text. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — February 22nd, 2014, 6:46 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Pat Ferguson wrote:Perhaps a comparison of the Greek verb seen at Rev. 8:6 in P115, 01 and 02 might be helpful?
Could you spell this out please. I'm sorry, I don't have access to the verb you are referring to.
Rev. 8:6 in P115 [και] [οι] [ζ̅] αγ[γελοι] ο̣ι̣ εχοντες τα[ς] [ζ̅] [σαλπιγγας] [ητοιμασαν] εα̣[υτους] [ινα] [σαλ]π̣ισω[σιν] Source Munster http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/An ... +start.anv Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — February 22nd, 2014, 4:09 am
 
Pat Ferguson wrote: Perhaps a comparison of the Greek verb seen at Rev. 8:6 in P115, 01 and 02 might be helpful?
Could you spell this out please. I'm sorry, I don't have access to the verb you are referring to. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — February 22nd, 2014, 2:14 am
Perhaps a comparison of the Greek verb seen at Rev. 8:6 in P115, 01 and 02 might be helpful? Statistics: Posted by Pat Ferguson — February 21st, 2014, 6:14 pm
 
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote: How could αυτους refer back to feminine σαλπιγγας? Another Revelation solecism?
Yes, it would be a syntax error. Not a rare event in Apoc. of John. But perhaps we shouldn't assume errors when there are other options. Right? If we assume that the text will honor the rules of concord at this point, then what is the impact of the breathing on the translation? At this point I am too close to the problem to see the answer. It is probably perfectly obvious but after fogging my brain by reading half a dozen grammars I can't get a handle on it. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — February 17th, 2014, 7:53 pm
How could αυτους refer back to feminine σαλπιγγας? Another Revelation solecism? Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — February 17th, 2014, 7:33 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: One treatment is semantic, saying that αὐτοὺς in the Hellenistic period expanded to overlap with the semantic domains of εαυτου. .
Perhaps I have not understood what Danker and others are saying. At first I thought they were claiming that αὐτοὺς had expanded to include reflexive usage overlapping with εαυτου. Now I wonder if that is really the case. Two more places to look, Moule Idioms p119 and Louw & Nida footnote #11 on page 818, §92.37 which I will cut and paste here:
11 Note the overlap between αὐτόςb (92.11) and αὐτόςc (92.37). αὐτόςb serves essentially as a reference to the third person, both singular and plural, and only in the nominative form does it carry emphasis. This could very well be classified as an instance of αὐτόςc. In the oblique cases there is no such emphasis. On the other hand, αὐτόςc may be an adjunct to any lexical item in an oblique case and, as such, carries emphasis.
Impossible to make sense out of this w/o seeing a b c:
58.31 αὐτός a, ή, ό (occurring with the article): pertaining to that which is identical to something — ‘same.’ προσηύξατο τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον εἰπών ‘he prayed, saying the same thing’ Mk 14:39; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; ‘do not even the tax collectors do the same thing?’ Mt 5:46. 92.11 αὐτός b, ή, ό: a reference to a definite person or persons spoken or written about (with an added feature of emphasis in the nominative forms) — ‘he, him, she, her, it, they, them.’ αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν ‘for he will save his people from their sins’ Mt 1:21; καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ ‘and this was the sixth month for her who was called barren’ Lk 1:36; αὐτῶν τὴν συνείδησιν ‘their conscience’ 1Cor 8:12; καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ ‘and taking the child by the hand, he said to her’ Mk 5:41. 92.37 αὐτός c, ή, ό: a marker of emphasis by calling attention to the distinctiveness of the lexical item with which it occurs (used for all persons, genders, and numbers) — ‘-self, -selves’ (for example, myself, yourself, yourselves, ourselves, himself, herself, itself, themselves).11 πέπεισμαι δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ περὶ ὑμῶν ‘my fellow believers, I myself am persuaded concerning you’ Ro 15:14; αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ εἶπεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ ‘David himself spoke by means of the Holy Spirit’ Mk 12:36.
I am still somewhat less than perfectly clear about this. I need to sort this out for a project I am working on. Particularly the semantic impact of reflexive pronoun vs non-reflexive. I suspect it would involve a change of referent from the trumpets to the Angels: NKJV Rev. 8:6   So the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound. based on the Maj/TR Reading ητοιμασαν εαυτους ινα σαλπισωσιν. NRSV Rev. 8:6   Now the seven angels who had the seven trumpets made ready to blow them. NA27 ἡτοίμασαν αὐτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν Now my question is, which breathing of αυτους lies behind the NRSV? I am assuming that it is the smooth breathing? Comments? Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — February 17th, 2014, 5:06 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: Rev. 8:6 Καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἔχοντες τὰς ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν αὐτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν. H.B. Swete, R.H. Charles and others including a minority of the "committee" Metxger TextCom 1stEd. prefer the rough breathing on αὐτοὺς. Metzger says "Despite what appears to be Hellenistic usage a minority of the committee strongly prefers the use of the rough breathing on αὐτοὺς." What is this all about? What does Hellenistic usage refer to in this context?
Two minutes after posting I found Danker's (3rd Ed) discussion of this p268 under εαυτου 1st paragraph. Also J.H. Moulton vol.2 p181, and Metxger's comments on Phil 3:21 TextCom 1stEd page 615-616. I am still somewhat befuddled by the question "what is at stake here?", it seems that there is some contradiction or merely confusion in the different treatments. One treatment is semantic, saying that αὐτοὺς in the Hellenistic period expanded to overlap with the semantic domains of εαυτου. Other treatments seem to be focused simply on orthography (not semantic issues) saying that in some mss at some dates and locations the epsilon in εαυτου was omitted. I am really interested in the semantic issue but you really can not totally divorce the semantic issue from the spelling issue. help with this question would be appreciated. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — February 17th, 2014, 3:07 pm
Rev. 8:6 Καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἔχοντες τὰς ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν αὐτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν. H.B. Swete, R.H. Charles and others including a minority of the "committee" Metxger TextCom 1stEd. prefer the rough breathing on αὐτοὺς. Metzger says "Despite what appears to be Hellenistic usage a minority of the committee strongly prefers the use of the rough breathing on αὐτοὺς." What is this all about? What does Hellenistic usage refer to in this context? Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — February 17th, 2014, 2:07 pm