Subject: Re: Possible Nomina Sacra in Rev 1:4?

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:10:15 -0700

Maurice Robinson wrote:

> the
> construction found in the TR reading (APO TOU + nominative expression) is
> not only artificial and ungrammatical, but has no parallel anywhere else
> in the entire NT.

Does it necessarily *have* to have a parallel in the NT in order to be a
possible alternative?? There are many expressions and manner of
expression in the NT which occur only *once*.

As to the assertion that it is ungrammatical, this may very well be the
case. But grammatical rules are not always followed. Is it possible that
in the APO TOU + nominative here, the TOU functions as a personal
pronoun (meaning "from Him, he who...."/"from the One who....")? Berry's
interlinear has "from him who is....". It is clear that the hO often in
the NT functions as a relative pronoun.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:55:00 -0400 (EDT)

> the NT functions as a relative pronoun.

Since I realize that Mr. Evensen is a defender of the TR, this type of
comment comes as no surprise.  From my text-critical perspective, however,
the TR carries absolutely _no_ weight whatsoever, and my previous
statement regarding the grammatical anomaly in that edition stands. 

Had the TR reading been supported by 40% of the MSS, or even 30% or 20%,
then the decision would be more difficult, and I would have to take the TR
reading more seriously, but as a variant standing on its own
well-supported merits -- not because it appears in the TR.  

But when the TR reading, as here, is supported by few if any MSS -- and I
know from my data in hand that the TR here certainly has less than 10%
support since ca. 50% of the MSS (Byz-pt) read QEOU and ca. 40%
(Byz-pt/Nestle27) omit -- then I have _no_ hesitation whatsoever about
proclaiming such a reading to be non-original. 

I don't have my copy of Hoskier at home with me, so I can't state the
actual number of MSS supporting the TR reading, but since it is certainly
less than 10% of the MSS, I immediately suspect those two or three MSS
which are suspected of being copies of printed TR editions (e.g.,
Hoskier's numbers 57 or 141), and quite possibly no others.  Any MSS in
which the reading APO TOU O WN does occur, however, where the MS is not a
slavish copy of a printed TR, I still would suspect (as previously stated)
to be the result of the aforesaid phonetic error regarding the nomen
sacrum QU confused with the near-homonym TOU, for the simple reason of
the scantiness of support for such a reading as well as the late MSS in
which such support appears.

As for the question Evensen asked, 

> expression in the NT which occur only *once*.

...the answer is certainly not.  I myself argue for the originality of a
number of hapax legomena which happen to appear in the Byzantine Textform
(e.g. deuteroprwtw in Lk.6:1), and Mr. Evensen must be well aware of that,
I presume, since there the TR and Byz happen to agree. 

However, the principle of preferring the reading which follows the known
style of a writer should always take precedence whenever the reading which
does _not_ match such style has little or no support among MSS, fathers,
or versions, as is the case with the TR reading in question. 

Note particularly what Hurtado pointed out: the omission of any genitive
phrase following APO _could_ be explained as a deliberate anomaly decided
upon by the author of the Apocalypse to introduce a divine title.  Even
though I prefer to follow a reading which is more closely attuned to the
known style of the Apocalypse, Hurtado's reasoning has a degree of merit
which Evensen's arguments in favor of the TR do not -- and that degree of
merit is that ca. 40% of the known MSS testify to that non-genitive
reading.  

The TR's TOU, standing virtually alone, has _nothing_ similar to commend
it to anyone save the TR defenders, and that by rhetoric, not reason.

_________________________________________________________________________
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, 23 Aug 1997 22:29:25 -0700

> proclaiming such a reading to be non-original.

Since my method of how to determine the original readings differs from
that of Dr. Robinson, I would not evaluate the situation in the same
manner he does. Thus his appeal to the low quantity of external
evidence in favour of the TR reading and his majority text method
is not necessarily convincing from my point of view.

> merit is that ca. 40% of the known MSS testify to that non-genitive

What can I say?

> it to anyone save the TR defenders, and that by rhetoric, not reason.

No, nothing *similar*; nevertheless, I would note that the TR reading
*can* be defended on *internal* grounds. (I do not say that it is 
stronger, on internal grounds, than the other competing readings. I'm
not *that* stupid!). Thus it is not mere "rhetoric" that is the
tool in my defense of the TR reading. (BTW, I did not "defend" the
TR reading in my previous post. I was just questioning Dr. Robinson's
conclusion regarding the TR reading. There is a difference. However, in
*this* post I am defending the TR reading).

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:20:01 -0400 (EDT)

> is not necessarily convincing from my point of view.

Were I a thorough-going eclectic, I might concur with that possibility;
however, I suspect that even Kilpatrick would not have chosen to defend
the TR reading in the current situation, and I suspect neither would
Elliott.

> *this* post I am defending the TR reading).

Regardless of whether or not the previous post was formally "defending" 
the TR reading, it still was as much of an underlying motif as is my
freely admitted support of the Byzantine Textform, and thus Evensen's
comments were (correctly) presumed to incline the discussion toward that
point of TR defense.

Any internal defense of the TR reading still has to deal with TOU
introducing a nominative phrase, and this is quite a hurdle; in my opinion
even more of a hurdle than Hurtado's preference for the APO + nominative
phrase construction.  In my opinion there comes a point where the degree
of difficulty in a "more difficult" reading reaches the point of
indefensibility, and, in the light of lack of MS, versional, and patristic
support for the TR reading, I think virtually all Byzantine-priority
defenders, reasoned eclectics, and even rigorous eclectics would demur
from trying to defend the TR in this location.  

TR advocates here stand wholly alone, and defend this reading solely
because it appears in the text they have defined _a priori_ as original,
without weighing its merits against those of the other competing readings.
To my way of thinking this does reflect rhetoric rather than reason, since
no systematic application of text-critical principles can be shown to be
applied consistently throughout the NT as applied to their methodology,
but only pick-and-choose application of selected principles which suit a
given purpose at various points.  No other method of NT textual criticism
follows such a haphazard method, and this alone calls any selective TR
defense into serious question in my opinion.

I do not intend to continue a debate on the merits or demerits of the TR
in any case, since I consider all such discussion fruitless when dealing
with virtually unsupported readings that are advocated as true by certain
advocates of what I consider fringe or extreme positions within NT textual
criticism.  Mr. Evensen is of course free to maintain his own position,
and no doctrinal damage will be done to the Christian world by his defense
of the TR; but it just is not my own cup of tea.