by AuldSoul 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
Leolaia and/or Narkissos,
Is Textus Receptus more correct that WH at Revelation 1:11? Should "o protos kai o eschatos" and "ton Α kai ton Ω" appear in this verse? It would be very insteresting to me, if these should appear in the text. Basically, it would directly link "the Alpha and the Omega" with the Son of man in verses 12-20.
What are the arguments, pro and con, in the translational world?
Thanks, in advance, and I hope you both had wonderful holidays!
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Wow, Simon! I posted this an hour ago and it is already fully indexed in Google. Nice!
According to the critical apparatus in Aune's commentary (Vol. 1, p. 64), these are the relevant variants:
11.c. Variant: (1) insert egó eimi to a kai to ó, ho prótos kai ho eskhatos, kai] Andreas. (2) omit] A C
In other words, the insertion is found only in the 7th-century commentary of Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea, and it is missing in Greek MSS of the book itself, in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions (and according to another source, it is also absent in Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions), and even in a manuscript of Andreas of Caesarea. AFAIK it is not even listed as a variant in Nestle-Aland's NTG. I can't think of a more obvious example of an interpolation than this -- especially if it is not found in any Greek MS but only in a single Byzantine-era commentary. If that is the case, it is quite odd how it even got into the Textus Receptus. My guess is that Erasmus had access to at least a single medieval MSS that was influenced by Andreas which did not survive into our time. If that was the case, I think this shows how much the discipline of textual criticism has grown from the time of Erasmus.
Thanks, Leolaia. It doesn't really affect the "Title" argument too severely, since it is agreed that the Alpha and the Omega also self-identifies by use of the title 'ho protos kai ho eschatos' ('the First and the Last', for the benefit of other readers) at Revelation 22:13, and in Revelation 1:12-20 it is clear that this titular identifier belongs to the Son of man. The Minority Texts and the Majority Texts agree in these places.
I just wanted to know whether a Textus Receptus versus WH verbal faceoff was a prudent course to pursue in a discussion regarding Revelation 1:11. Seems pretty clear such a discussion would be ethically irresponsible.
Thank you so much!
AuldSoul
Yes, I would definitely not make any arguments on Revelation 1:11. The christological use of Alpha and Omega and First and the Last (equivalent in meaning and the latter occurring in Deutero-Isaiah with reference to Yahweh) in 1:17 and 22:13 is more than sufficient to make your argument.
Leolaia,
The question of identity is not as simple as it seems. Why? Because authority, titles and even a name can be imputed to someone sent as a representative of the one so named and/or titled. We see this with the angel in the burning bush that used the name of God, as did such angels in other verses that delivered such messages. And the expression first and last when explained the way it was can be used by another. This does not force identity as some may think. It can then be argued that the expression Alpha and Omega in all occurrences in the Revelation apply to Jesus since the name Yawheh does not appear in that scroll as it did in OT texts where even such use also did not prove a personal identity.
You covered the disputed texts very well and this should not be a problem for anyone, but even with the inserted words nothing really was accomplished. Jewish history and theology for thousands of years establish the foundation for our thinking regarding the God they worshipped not third century Christianity. So verses like the ones under discussion would not change this foundational belief in one God. (One God in three persons was not a part of this foundation).
Rev 1:11 KJV Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev 1:11 NIV which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."
The text that followed this explained itself and its use of words such as first and last dissolving any connection and use elsewhere for other reasons.
Rev. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
The one that will come quickly is? The one that has the "reward is with me" is? The Christ! So the use of Alpha and Omega does not identify this Christ as another person in this verse and he can say this for the reasons being also the King of the city provided by God as His representative.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
And perhaps the verse that started it all was 1:8 with words like Lord and Almighty. But John identifies himself as "brother" and "companion in tribulation" to this Lord. God uses son not brother to identify those that belong to Him. But Jesus did say that on many occasions and John acknowledges this relationship..
1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. 9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
So the argument is not as simple as it seems and no doubt will continue to our very end.
Joseph
Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding, in my last post I wasn't saying that the argument was settled or that there wasn't room for debate or that the issue was simple. I was saying that one can make a valid argument about titular usage on the basis of the other texts, whereas it would be an invalid argument to use Revelation 1:11 as evidence of titular usage. This is different than saying that a particular argument is in fact the best appraisal of the evidence vis-a-vis other arguments, or that the argument can be considered definitively proven.
Also, on the issue of oversimplifying arguments, I must say that there is hardly a dilemma of choosing either Jewish monotheism or third-century trinitarianism in considering that the author of Revelation intended a christological usage of the title "First and the Last" and "Alpha and the Omega". That oversimplifies both the diversity in second-Temple Judaism (which had a range of different monotheist schemes, including those that hypostasized an aspect of God as a distinct personality), as well as the christological complexity of early Christianity. Also I don't think AuldSoul was intending to identify Christ with "another person" on account of having the same title (identifying the Son with the Father?). The argument as I understood it is that these titles (which in light of their OT background highlight the singular uniqueness of God) are shared between two persons in the christological scheme of John of Patmos. This fits with the idea that God shares his throne with Christ such that they both sit together on the same throne (Revelation 3:21, 7:17, 22:1-3).
Sorry I'm stepping back into the discussion as I only come across this thread now. The TR variant is mentioned in Nestle-Aland (27th ed.) as supported by "MA" (Gothic M, upper A, sorry I can't use the right fonts), which (according to the introduction, p. 63*), "represents the large number of [Byzantine] manuscripts with the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea," as opposed to "MK" which "represents the Koine tradition proper". ("M" alone in Revelation stands for the agreement of "MA" and "MK".) So assuming that N-A is correct (and that I understand it correctly!) it might be that the support for the variant reading is not that weak, although the variant reading is certainly secondary (it is not mentioned by Metzger).
Thank you for helping clear that up -- I didn't have a copy with me so I wasn't entirely sure if it was listed or not. The main thing though is that these "MA" manuscripts are not MSS of Revelation per se but of the commentary by Andreas. At least that is my understanding of how Aune describes the textual evidence. He says that of the 292 minuscules of Revelation, 98 are actually commentaries on Revelation (Vol. 1, pp. cxxxix-cxl). "Andr or Andreas" is explained thusly: "Andreas, or Andrew, a bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote a commentary on Revelation, ca. AD 600 (J. Schmidt, ed. Studien, part 1: Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisareia). 'Andreas' means that the reading is in the text of Schmid. 'Andr" when followd by a letter, e.g. 'a', refers to a group of Andreas MSS" (p. xxv). So it sounds pretty much like what I said -- that no stand-alone MSS of Revelation contain the interpolation. These are still textual witnesses (like patristic citations), but these are more marginal than copies of the book itself.
Good to see you here at JWN! I hope you'll stick around. :)
I checked a number of my commentaries and aside from a textual note, there is no mention of this interpolated passage elsewhere.
fam 1006 1006 1841 fam 1611 2050 2329 2351 Andr f 2023corr g i 2036 1 94 1773 Byzantine lat syr cop sa . (3) Ióanné] Oecumenius 2053 .