Subject: Re: Rev 12:18

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 15:38:47 +0100

On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson brought forth a vivid defence of the 
majority reading ESTAQHN over the competing minority reading ESTAQH in Rev 
12:18. In this post I do not wish to opt for one or the other reading. I simply 
wish to know, if I got Maurices's argument right.

     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.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:25:45 -0500 (EST)

> wish to know, if I got Maurices's argument right.

[eclectic view from Metzger:]
 
>      copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the

[Robinson's comment:]

> sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration.

This seems accurate to me. Is there a particular point, Ulrich?

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