Subject: Re: Rev 12:18

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 18:13:27 +0100

On Tu, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

>> 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.

>[eclectic view from Metzger:]
 
>>      The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when
>>      copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the
>>      following "eidon".

>[Robinson's comment:]

>> 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.

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

No. Sorry, but this was a distorted message. I started to compse one, then all 
of a sudden it dissappeared. I tried to figure out where it went, but I did not 
succeed. Then I had to leave. Being now back in Muenster, and after checking my 
mailbox, I have to face the sad truth that I can hardly handle the computer.
My apologize.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster