If you look at this passage in the Greek text of Rev 11:8 you will find that the word for carcass is ptoma and in this case, strangely, even though it speaks of two individuals the word ptoma is singular in the Nestle-Aland text, (not in the T/R).Ĩ και το πτωμα αυτων επι της πλατειας της πολεως της μεγαλης ητις καλειται πνευματικως σοδομα και αιγυπτος οπου και ο κυριος αυτων εσταυρωθη The reason it is singular in the more ancient and more reliable Greek texts is because it more likely came from the word domen, as one may also see in the above text, we read το πτωμα αυτων, which is like saying "the carcass of them", (which is likely why it was changed or "corrected" in other more recent Greek texts). 2.13 Not in Nestle")ģ) Another thing I noticed was the word used for carcass in Rev 11:8-9, which in this text is נבלה (twice, once in each verse, נבלתיהם, "their carcasses"), which should rather be domen, (דמן). (Scroll down to the short section titled "Three Interesting Variants at Rev. Here is a little primer on the subject matter: Evangelical Textual Criticism: August 2016 The variant reading appears in manifold texts, to the point that even Tischendorf placed the verb form in his text, ( Revelation 2 (Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed.)) I believe the original Greek word in the most ancient texts of Rev 2:13 was the verb anteipas, (antepo, to speak against), but through a process known as itacism it erroneously came to be the name Antipas. That would mean that, yes, it appears much different and much more "Jewish", but is it the mind of the original author that we are reading or is it the mind of the Jewish scribe who took a late Greek text and converted it back into Hebrew? (I do agree the original Apocalypse may have been in Hebrew).Ģ) The name Antipas should not likely be in this text, and there are a host of reasons why, which I won't try to go into here, but this again tells me that the source text for this Hebrew text is probably much more recent than the translator would like to believe. What this would mean is what I touched on above, that is, that just because the text is full of Hebraisms and Jewish idiomatic thought does not mean it is the mind of the original author: it appears more to be that a more recent text was taken and rendered into the Hebrew/Jewish mindset of the scribe or person who did this work. This does not bode well because, at least, imo, it tells me that this text is based on a version that was quite recent by comparison, (especially compared to what the translator and site owner seems to want to believe). (The phrase may be in a scant few later texts and maybe some Latin texts, I didn't check). Not even the Byzantine textual family says "kings and priests", for the phrase is primarily found only in the Erasmus compilation text which later became the Textus Receptus or Received Text. The more ancient Greek texts do not say the same in Rev 1:6, ( Revelation 1:6 Greek Text Analysis), but instead read, "and has made us a kingdom, priests unto God.". The thinking that one is a king is a pretty big mistake, and we have good examples of that already in the scripture: just look how bad it was for Israel to desire to have a king over them when that first happened? What does the scripture say? Those that desired a king had rejected the Most High in desiring to have a king set over them. Nowhere else are we said to be made kings and priests, but we are said to be made a kingdom of priests. I'll mention just a few things that lead me to believe this to be the case.ġ) "he has made us kings and priests" should not be in this text if it is close to the original. Several things give this away, again, in my opinion. What I think may be happening here is that the translator may be mistaking the clear and present Jewish or Hebrew mindset displayed in the text for the mindset of the original author of the work. However there are a few telltale signs that make me think that this is not as ancient as the translator might wish to believe. I read the welcome page and applaud the work that this person is engaged in. From a first glance cursory look my opinion, (and just that, merely my opinion), would be to say be careful.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |