Subject: Re: Rev 12:18

From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:24:18 -0600

Jim West wrote:
>In this text a variant exists which seems to be easy to resolve.  The
>majority of good, early, Alexandrian (!!!) witnesses read <g>estaqh</g>
>while the later, poorer, Byzantine (!!!)  witnesses have <g>estaqhn</g>.
>
>I realize that NA 26 does not have every variant- so I am wondering; what is
>the versional evidence here and what do y'all think is the "original" reading?
>
Jim, 
It would be very difficult for me to vote against A when it is in agreement
with Aleph, P47, and C in Revelation, especially when the context supports
the reading.  I think John intends to contrast the Dragon standing on the
sand with the Lamb standing on Mt. Zion (14:1).  It wouldn't make sense for
the narrator to simply state, " I am standing on the sand."

Carlton L. Winbery
E-mail [email-masked]
[email-masked]
114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:57:51 -0700

>the narrator to simply state, " I am standing on the sand."

While I tend to agree with that, my last comment on a reading in the
Apocalypse produced more controversy and less relevant discussion than
I had hoped. So I'll confine myself to what I have in the versional
data.

>From UBS4 we learn that the version evidence is as follows:

estaqh  -- a gig vg hark arm eth 
estaqhn -- vg-mss phil sa bo

(Recall that the Peshitta does not include the Apocalypse.)

Turning to Merk's list of Vulgate mansucripts, we find that
the vulgate mss with estaqhn (steti) are cav sang mon. The
remaining important witnesses, including am ful, read estaqh
(stetit).

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:22:22 -0500 (EST)

In regard to the discussion of Rev.12:18, I of course am not surprised
that the unanimous decision of the modern eclectic viewpoint and that
which has been expressed on this list has been supportive of only that
reading which is _not_ that of the Byzantine Textform. This as usual
comes almost as a knee-jerk reaction, and demonstrates that the cult of
the best MS(S) still prevails in modern eclectic text-critical
decisions regardless of internal considerations which might be to the
contrary.

I would wager that, were the respective evidence supporting "estaqhn"
and "estaqh" reversed, the eclectic defense would be carefully adjusted
on supposed internal grounds to support the _opposite_ reading now
currently deprecated merely because it is "Byzantine".

As usual, I alone have to be the Lorax speaking for the Byzantine
trees, so I will point out the relevant and pertinent information which
might apply in regard to the presumed originality of the Byzantine
reading, and show how that reading best can explain the rise of all the
other(s).

Using the extensive data in Hoskier's _Concerning the Text of the
Apocalypse_ rather than the limited material in NA27, one finds that
(not counting smooth and rough breathing differences) there are three
readings present in the variant unit under consideration:

(1) "estaqh", supported by 20 MSS in Hoskier plus P47; these include
the uncial MSS Aleph A C and reflect just under 10% of all known MSS.

(2) "esth", supported by a single MS (Hoskier's number 23)

(3) "estaqhn", the "Byzantine" reading, supported by the remaining 90%
of MSS, including Hoskier's uncials B (046) and P.

Although the aorist active "esth" of reading #2 does "make sense" in
the passage, I suspect no one would claim that this otherwise
unsupported reading would have a claim to originality. The decision
thus is one between the aorist passive variants "estaqh" ("he stood")
and "estaqhn" (I stood).

Regarding the external evidence, one important item for consideration
is the fact that in the Revelation there is no single "Byzantine" or
"majority" text, but _two_ competing Byzantine sub-types, the so-called
"Andreas" (NA27's Gothic "MA") and the "Q" (NA27's Gothic "MK").  These
two subtypes are more often than not quite disparate, and their very
divergence greatly complicates the establishment of a generally
representative Byzantine Text in the Revelation.

Regardless of one's view of the Byzantine Textform, it is without
question that the "MA" and "MK" groups deviated early from whatever
text they may once have had in common, if there ever had been a common
text for them beyond the autograph itself.

The fact that at this point of variation _both_ the "MA" and "MK"
groups _unite_ in reading "estaqhn" indicates a greater likelihood that
such a reading stemmed transmissionally from the autograph or at least
a point previous to the great divergence of "MA" and "MK" than that
there was an _independent_ creation of the "estaqhn" reading in _both_
Byzantine sub-types at some point subsequent to their original
differentiation.

It is also exceedingly difficult to imagine how such independent
correction within two separate Byzantine sub-streams would ever have
_identically_ created what Metzger (_Textual Commentary_ in loc.)
suggested had to have occurred, assuming the "estaqh" reading to have
been original:

     The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when
     copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the
     following "eidon".

The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he
stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and
flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of
alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely
to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular
ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first
person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made
sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration.

Had this been the case, then one would expect to find this same
phenomenon of altering the persons or even tenses of verbs repeated
continually in the Revelation -- especially among those dreaded
Byzantine-era minuscule scribes -- but such alteration as Metzger
alleges here simply did _not_ occur elsewhere in the book in that
wholesale manner.

Certainly, at all times _some_ scribes may have accommodated a person or
tense to a preceding or following verb (and more often to a _preceding_
verb, simply due to the sequential nature of copying); but what _some_
scribes may have done at _some_ times is clearly _not_ automatically
endemic to what would be nearly _all_ scribes from two divergent
textual sub-types acting in concert to make the identical alteration;
Colwell's "Scribal Habits" article makes this clear even among a mere
three early papyri, which rarely shared the same scribal proclivities.

On the other hand, if the 1st person "estaqhn" were original, it would
not be difficult to assume the _accidental_ dropping of a nu --
especially if it were represented by a suspension bar at the end of a
line -- in a _small_ number of early MSS, the uncials of which quite
likely reflect a common Egyptian localized-text origin.

If such an single-letter omission were to have occurred in such early
MSS, so long as the resultant text still "made sense" there would be
little motivation to correct such an error by those who read such MSS,
and the error would then receive a limited degree of perpetuation while
the _correct_ and _original_ reading would continue to be perpetuated
in the 90% mass of all other MSS which comprise the two divergent
sub-Byzantine texttypes.

Further, when one considers internal evidence, the case becomes stronger
in support of "estaqhn" as original.  Carlton's overly-simplistic answer
to the contrary, I hardly think that John was intending the dragon
standing on the sand of the sea to somehow be a parallel to ch.14 where
one finds the Lamb standing on Mt.Zion. Both the dragon and the Lamb might
be "standing", but the parallels end there, since there is no "sea" or
"sand" present in ch 14 (though there _is_ the heavenly "sea of glass" in
15:2, but I doubt one would want to press the connection that far). 

Similarly in the immediate context of 12:18, there also is _no_
"mountain" as in ch.14, even though there had been a "great mountain
burning with fire" previously in 8:8; but again the connection is far
too remote to be likely.

There also is a further contextual problem if "estaqh" is original,
since 12:17 has the furious dragon departing ("aphlqen") to "make war
with the remnant of [the woman's] seed" -- but if "estaqh" is read, the
dragon does _not_ depart, but _stops_ and stands on the sand of the
sea, and does nothing more, except in 14:2 to transfer some of his
authority to the Beast.

While it might be convenient to have the dragon stop by the sea shore
from where the Beast arises (14:1) in order to impart his authority to
the Beast, this is not obligatory, since (as is usual in the
Revelation) an apparent time- and locale-shift occurs in the narrative
as the scene changes.

If "estaqhn" is original, the scene-shift occurs quite smoothly: the
dragon departs, and John suddenly is transferred from heaven to earth,
finding himself on the sand of the sea _just in time_ to see the result
of the dragon's own change of venue, with the Beast now rising up out
from the sea who will receive authority from the dragon -- John is
transported to the right place at the right time.

Hitherto, John's location for viewing the events surrounding the dragon
had been in heaven (ch.12). That is the location from where John
watched the war which began in heaven and ended with the casting down
of the dragon to earth; John watched all those events, including the
persecution of the woman and her seed as a spectator from above.

Beginning in 12:18, John becomes a spectator _on earth_, and it is quite
natural and fitting with the normal style of the Revelation to have such
shifts occur, and then for John to explain both his change of location,
and then to tell the reader what he saw from his new vantage point ("kai
eidon" is one of the most frequent recurring phrases in the Revelation).

Stylistically and contextually, the reading "estaqhn", supported by 90% of
the MSS, has _far_ more to commend it than the reading of about 21 MSS,
the earliest of which are apparently of Egyptian derivation, especially
MSS whose reading well may have stemmed from an accidental omission of a
single letter, whether independently or in a common archetype. This
scenario is far more preferable than the suggestion that scribes from two
significant sub-Byzantine traditions deliberately and in concert altered
the text they were copying _merely_ to make a perfectly sensible reading
("estaqh") agree with a 1st person singular in the following clause for no
significant reason and with no significant gain. 

In my opinion, the problem with modern eclecticism continually seems to be
its bias in favor of the supposed "best MSS", with no honest intent of
taking _all_ possible external, transmissional, and internal aspects of
the textual process into full consideration when evaluating variant units. 
As Colwell said regarding the impact of Hort's genealogical method (which
Colwell was critiquing): "Hort has put blinders on our [the modern
eclectics] eyes." I trust that the above discussion will at least
demonstrate that there is _another_ methodological option which may well
be superior to that currently practiced by the modern eclectic schools. 

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 04:09:29 -0800

> be superior to that currently practiced by the modern eclectic schools.

I wish to thank Dr. Robinson for his sensible and clear reasoning regarding 
Revelation 12:18 and his faithful advocacy of the Byzantine Text!

There certainly is not too much of this kind of textual criticism on this list.
I´m sure it´s needed!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen