Subject: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:38:50 -0400 (EDT)

Dear TC List,

I recently read an argument with respect to the Divine Name in Rev. 1:4 in
"The Morphology of Koine Greek, as used in the Apocalypse of St. John, a
study in bilingualism" by G. Mussies, Leiden E.J.Brill 1971.

Mussies postulates a Tetragrammaton removal in Rev 1:4 as an answer to the
"missing genitive" in APO <missing word?> hO WN."

I have a question:

How plausible is his argument that the scribes would read a blank space meant
for the Tetragram and collapse the words together on both sides of the space?
Was this a common enough practice that it might reasonably occur? Are there
any references to which you can direct me? Would you critique this argument
for me?

Thank you in advance,
Mitchell Andrews

-------
Excerpts from pages 92-94.
6.2.4.2	Use of the Nominative in the Apocalypse
	6.2.4.2.1	Appositional Use. That a nominitive substantive
may serve in the Apc. as an apposition, ... <snip>

(...)

We believe that the famous anomaly in I 4 'APW hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO
ERCOMEMOS' is also a nominative of apposition, and that this passage
only seemingly contains the use of "APO with the nominative". The
explanation of Charles and others is that St. John in deference to the
Divine Name has shrunk back from submitting it to declension, that is
from using it in an oblique case (PTWSIS CASUS).

(...)

The scribes of a number of manuscripts have assumed that a genitive has been
omitted; accordingly some cursives have here 'TOU hO WN or KURIOU hO WN', and
the uncial 046 and many cursives, too, have 'QEOU hO WN'. These are evidently
additions meant to solve the puzzle, but 'APW hO WN' must be original, as it
is found in the older uncials A, C, Aleph. It is known that Hebrew
manuscripts in square script retain occasional instances of the name Jhwh in
the so-called Old Hebrew or Phenician letters. 

2 Similarly the LXX-mss retain somtimes (YHWH) in square letters, which was
misread by Greek scribes as 'PIPI' or even as 'THGH' i.e. 'THi GHi' in Daniel
IX2(LXX). 1 Our assumption is not that at Ap I 4 there was originally an
alphabetical antiquity of the same kind, to which 'hO WN' etc was the
apposition. The closest parallel is furnished by the Qumran-scrolls. In I Q.S
VIII 14 we find instead of (YHWH) four dots by each other's side in a
quotation from Isaiah XL 3, and we think it very probable that the Apc.
autograph may have had at I 4 the same indication of the Divine Name, an
indication which could most easily be effaced by thumbing or by decay of the
scroll. 2 the result was then an open space and this seemed of course
meaningless to subsequent copyists who did to retain it : 'APO .... hO WN'
became 'APO     hO WN' which was shortened to 'APO hO WN'

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:22:27 +000

For my money, Charles's discussion is still more likely.  The 
hypothesis about which you inquire seems unverifiable, and 
unnecessary, given the several usages of the formula "who is and who 
was and who is to come"  in Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; cf. 16:5.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (lakr)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:57:48 -0700 (PDT)

Greetings,
TC'ers

I think this is fascinating and I don't have any answers, 
only questions ....

1. Of the five usages of 'O WN ...' only Rev 1:4  has nothing in
aposition to the phrase.  The rest all have 'Lord God' (1:8),
'Almighty God` (4:8), 'Lord Almighty God' (11:17), with 16:5 having
the pronoun 'EI'.

2. In the entire of the GNT, 'APO' is never followed by anthing but
a genitive, except at Rev 1:4.

3. The evidence suggests from the article supplied by Mitchell that
scribes felt that Re 1:4 was grammatically incorrect and so supplied
a noun to put in aposition to the phrase 'O WN ...'.   If it is true
that this sounds grammatically incorrect to those who knew the
language natively, does not that speak in favor of a textual problem
with Rev 1:4 ?

Sincerely,
Larry Kruper

Re 1:8		KURIOS O QEOS O WN KAI O HN KAI O ERXOMENOS O PANTOKRATWR
Re 4:8		O QEOS O PANTOKRATWR O HN KAI O WN KAI O ERXOMENOS 
Re 11:17	KURIE O QEOS O PANTOKRATWR O WN KAI O HN 
Re 16:5		EI O WN KAI O HN [O] OSIOS

Re 1:4		APO O WN KAI O HN KAI O ERXOMENOS KAI 
		APO TWN EPTA PNEUMATWN

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:23:38 +000

> language natively, does not that speak in favor of a textual problem

There is a textual "problem," of course:  is the original reading 
"apo ho on . . .", or "apo theou ho on . . .", or is it the proposed 
emendation?
But the fact that one or more scribes felt it necessary to make a 
change in the reading here by itself doesn't require that "apo ho on" 
is not the original reading.  It merely indicates that some scribes 
found it "difficult" for this or that reason.  But, going by the 
principle that the reading that explains the variants is to be 
preferred, such a "difficult" reading might well be preferred here.
Two additonal points:  (1) the expression "ho on, kai ho en, kai ho 
erchomenos" seems to have been for the author of Rev a formula, so he 
might well have wanted to preserve it in "ungrammatical" construction 
with the "apo" to avoid altering the sacred (liturgical?) formula; 
(2) On the proposed emendation hypothesis, there would have been 
originally a series of dots (?, as one finds in some Qumran Heb OT 
mss), because the author didn't want to write out the divine name.  
But how then do we get the "kyrios ho theos" in 1:8, and the other 
direct references to God in the other places where the "ho on, etc." 
formula appears in Rev?  That is, why in this one case would the 
author have used a non-verbal substitute for mentioning God, when he 
has no compuctions about doing so in other places?

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place