tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post393842425695443457..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Fact-checking Versional Support for the ECM and the textus receptusP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13748292841903119332023-10-23T02:46:12.467+01:002023-10-23T02:46:12.467+01:00I think it would be more accurate to say that the ...I think it would be more accurate to say that the Ethiopic is a witness to "εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος" for reasons I've set forth in great detail in my article (should be linked to my name). In a nutshell, while it is true that a literal translation of "ወትሄሉ" is "and who will be," the Ge'ez text uniformly translates "ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν" or ""ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν" as "ዘሀሎ ወትሄሉ". The only difference in the text at Rev. 16:5 is the addition of a kaf (ከ) at the end of the first word because the angel is speaking to God, rather than about God (i.e. "you who" rather than "he which"). So, this is best understood as representing a Greek source text with "εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος".TurretinFanhttps://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-geez-ethiopic-witness-to-text-of.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-710185771283665162022-06-02T12:44:48.942+01:002022-06-02T12:44:48.942+01:00Thanks you for looking it up!Thanks you for looking it up!Matthew Brubachernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-16376351886616866492022-06-01T23:00:17.620+01:002022-06-01T23:00:17.620+01:00The page is 1150 over at https://ntvmr.uni-muenste...The page is 1150 over at https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace?docID=31955 (if you can see), and the manuscript reads ἡ οἰκονομία (line 9). Also reads φωτίσαι πάντας, and has διὰ τοῦ Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ following κτισαντι (as per Majority text) in 3:9.stewalchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06454323945956862607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50575127914443315332022-06-01T13:02:32.262+01:002022-06-01T13:02:32.262+01:00Could someone check how GA 1955 reads in Ephesians...Could someone check how GA 1955 reads in Ephesians 3:9? Scrivener gave a collation of this Manuscript in 1859 (he called it Lambeth 1186 and referred to it as e) but did not say whether it read ἡ οἰκονομία or ἡ κοινωνία. His description of the codex (Codex Augiensis, p. lxii) suggests it contains the verse.Matthew Brubachernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-28327789493909026862020-01-08T01:53:18.012+00:002020-01-08T01:53:18.012+00:00Just wondering, but is it possible that Beza had a...Just wondering, but is it possible that Beza had access to manuscripts which we do not possess today? I mean, how many others have been lost to time? Just because there is no extant manuscript supporting Revelation 16:5 does not mean that there never was one. The same could be true for 2 Peter 3:10 I suppose, but this to me seems less likely.Corynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62538967945895241142020-01-03T09:31:30.701+00:002020-01-03T09:31:30.701+00:00Thank you all for your replies, and I'm so sor...Thank you all for your replies, and I'm so sorry it has taken me a few days to respond. I have updated the post to include an image of Rev. 16:5 in Hofmann's edition.<br /><br />Anon, yes, by conjecture, I meant a reading that has no support from Greek manuscripts. That being said, there's probably a discussion word having (and I imagine it has already been had somewhere) about whether or not a reading is truly a conjecture if it has non-Greek support.<br /><br />M. Simonet and Jacob, Thank you both so much for your detailed comments.<br /><br />Jan, thank you so much for your comments. I have been finding the Amsterdam Database to be absolutely fascinating, and I love that you have included the actual remarks of those proposing conjectures.<br /><br />Thank you all again for your comments.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53746157512005520442020-01-02T22:34:36.321+00:002020-01-02T22:34:36.321+00:00Generally conjectures aren't supported by vers...Generally conjectures aren't supported by versions either.<br /><br />In fact, if a variant does have the support of any witnesses at all, including versions, I wouldn't normally consider it a conjecture. If a variant that does have the support of a version is to be called a conjecture, then in my opinion, that label deserves some additional qualification in such a case.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-9507215775197775462020-01-02T19:58:25.965+00:002020-01-02T19:58:25.965+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69416992835762528152020-01-02T19:08:57.431+00:002020-01-02T19:08:57.431+00:00A "conjecture" is an educated guess base...A "conjecture" is an educated guess based on textual-critical methods, not supported by any extant Greek manuscript, but rather by manuscript evidence from other languages (versions)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17858205734132302582020-01-02T11:03:16.034+00:002020-01-02T11:03:16.034+00:00Thank you, Elijah, for the reference to the Amster...Thank you, Elijah, for the reference to the Amsterdam Database, and Jean-Louis and Jacob for the remarks on the Ethiopic.<br />In the database, our remark on Beza’s conjecture (cj10561) is now "There is some versional evidence (such as the Ethiopic), but Beza could not know about this.” In the next instalment (next week, that is), I intend to change that into the following: “Sometimes reference is made to versional evidence, but such evidence never exactly reflects the conjecture. E.g. the Ethiopic (cf. Hoskier, who depends on Walton) does not have three elements, but only two (ዘሀሎከ ወትሄሉ ), the second of which can just as well reflect “who is.”” Would this be correct?<br />Besides, It seems to me that the Ethiopic also does not so much omit ὁ ὅσιος, but transpose it, as ወራትዕ, to go with ጸድቅ. All in all, the translation seems too creative to be of any critical value.<br />And indeed, it would be nice if someone could check Josef Hofmann, Die Äthiopische Übersetzung der Johannes-Apokalypse (CSCO 282, Scriptores Aethiopici 55–56).Jan Krans-Plaisierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289844886277555959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23410494617567989532020-01-01T15:30:11.786+00:002020-01-01T15:30:11.786+00:00Hi Elijah,
Very interesting post. I agree with ...Hi Elijah, <br /><br />Very interesting post. I agree with J.-L. Simonet's comments. I wanted to add that in Rev 4:8, the Ethiopic reads: ዘሀሎ ወይሄሉ። (ze-helo we-yehelu) = "who was and who is/will be". There are just two verbs here. The first is a perfect 3ms with the relative pronoun, and the second is an imperfect 3ms. The first functions as the past tense ("who was"), and the second merely indicates an ongoing continuous state, presumably encompassing both "who is" and "who will be." Interestingly, Ethiopic could have replicated the ὁ ἐρχόμενος in 4:8 with ዘይመጽእ, (we-yemesa, "the one who is coming", 3ms) but the translator just chose to leave it out. Matthew 11:3 has the Greek participle ἐρχόμενος, and the Ethiopic translates it as ዘይመጽእ. <br /><br />Perhaps if the translator of 16:5 had wanted to emphasize the future tense (which would lead to the "et eris" translation in Latin), he would have used the verb መጽአ (to come) in the 2ms impf conjugation with the relative pronoun: ዘ + ተ + መጽእ = ዘተመጽእ (the one who is [you are] coming). <br /><br />This makes me think the Latin Translation "et es" rather than "et eris" would be more likely, although, technically speaking, either is possible. Jacob Rodriguezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09378505690012153609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44836261487109014232019-12-31T07:13:48.691+00:002019-12-31T07:13:48.691+00:00Dear M. Hixson,
Second thought about your questio...Dear M. Hixson,<br /><br />Second thought about your question. The Ethiopic imperfect can also mean a present time, so that the verb wthl can mean "et eris" or "et es". <br /><br />With my bret greetings,<br /><br />J.-L. Simonetjean-Louis Simonethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06041490801419138824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82094690832164791982019-12-30T23:02:36.441+00:002019-12-30T23:02:36.441+00:00Dear M Hixson,
The Latin translation of Walton...Dear M Hixson,<br /><br />The Latin translation of Walton's Ethiopic text "eris" is correct, If you can send me the critical edition of the Ethiopian Revelation, I will tell you if the text is the same than in Walton.<br /><br />With my best greetings,<br /><br />Jean-Louis Simonetjean-Louis Simonethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06041490801419138824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-31423524605676899522019-12-30T22:14:10.458+00:002019-12-30T22:14:10.458+00:00Here is Walton's volume V (NT): https://archiv...Here is Walton's volume V (NT): https://archive.org/details/BibliaSacraPolyglotta5<br />Teunis van Lopikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04688392583243276804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88935836733537691662019-12-30T20:41:43.553+00:002019-12-30T20:41:43.553+00:00Although I realize that I am not part of the inten...Although I realize that I am not part of the intended audience of this website, I read it with pleasure. But could you explain what a "conjecture" is, what makes it different from a variant. I guess it is a suggested variant, a variant not found in the manuscripts, but that would have been the variant in the autograph.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50860686613765023932019-12-30T17:51:08.920+00:002019-12-30T17:51:08.920+00:00Nice work comparing the translations, Elijah. I lo...Nice work comparing the translations, Elijah. I look forward to reading updates by those who are competent in Ethiopic to give clarity on issues surrounding Rev. 16:5. (*p.s. good plug for TH.) And I appreciate the second photograph from Walton's Polyglot. Not having seen the London Polyglot, I was wondering if the first image you took yourself (at TH) was the Latin text with Ethiopic marginalia. The second image clears that up. A marvel indeed to have a copy of Walton's 6-volume London Polyglot on hand at TH.Alistair McPhersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091547167755241417noreply@blogger.com