01-26-2004, 05:46 PM
drmlanc Wrote:???Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus and the Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus use the word 'dunatoi' in Revelation 6:15 which George Ricker Berry in his Greek-English Interlinear New Testament translates as 'powerful. The Byzantine Majority text and the Alexandrian text use a word that doesn't look OR sound anything like 'dunatoi.' These two texts use the word 'ischuroi which George Berry translates as 'strong' in his footnotes.
I posted some of your research in another forum (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.studylight.org">http://www.studylight.org</a><!-- m -->) and here was the response.
Rev 6:15. My copy of Christopher Wordsworth's 1882 commentary on the Revelation has ischuroi and does not even suggest an alternative in his commentary. This is odd because Wordsworth's commentary is based on Scriveners text, and the Greek text which Wordsworth is expounding here clearly has ischuroi. Where did he get it from if not Scrivener? Scrivener's collation of the Stephen's text with the Sinaiticus shows that the Sinaiticus has ischuroi so Scrivener clearly knew that ischuroi was the correct word. 'Stephens' and 'Scrivener', of course are not manuscript evidence but are editorial works producing a base text for translation. I have a lot of respect for Scrivener's text which is my default Greek text, so I find your reference to his use of dunatoi very odd. I will try to pursue it. However no manuscript of weight has dunatoi, so dunatoi was never part of the original text. Stephen's Greek text of 1550 certainly had dunatoi, but as far as I can see no editor since has had anything other than ischuroi. Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth (Scrivener associate), Nestle all have ischuroi.
The original Erasmus edited text for Revelation was based on a single manuscript that was torn, holed and had the last 6 verses missing. Erasmus filled in the gaps by borrowing from the Latin Vulgate which he translated back into Greek and inserted into the text. Stephens had only two manuscripts from which he created a text for Revelation, and these two manuscripts had never been collated (compared side by side) The work of Stephens was the basis for Bezae's work which culminated in the the Elzever edition usually called the Textus Receptus.
The point of all this detail is that The KJV translation of the Revelation does not rest upon the same sound foundation of manuscript authority as does the rest of the New Testament. It stands in a place by itself, and ought to be regarded accordingly. The word, I have no doubt was ischuroi. In the manuscript evidence that I can avail myself of, no manuscripts have ischuroi. The critical apparatus of my Nestle Greek New Testament has no alternative to ischuroi, which means there are no known manuscripts of any weight which have anything other than ischuroi. The verse has no critical notation; it is universally accepted as ischuroi. Stephens clearly had a rogue manuscript from which he took the word dunatoi.
While touching on the book of Revelation I include a quotation from Christopher Wordsworth (one of the greatest English bible scholars of the 19th Century and a brilliant Greek scholar)
"The diction of the Book of Revelation is more Hebraistic than that of any other portion of the New Testament. It adopts Hebrew Idioms and Hebrew Words. It studiously disregards the laws of Gentile syntax, and courts anomalies and solecisms; it christianizes Hebrew words and sentiments, and clothes them in evangelical dress, and consecrates them to Christ.
Some critics have been led by these condsiderations to imagine that the Apolcalypse was originally written in Hebrew. But such a theory is inconsistent with the character of those to whom it was originally addressed, the Churches of Asia, and with many internal phenomena eg the name of the Beast noted in Greek letters [13:18]"
In short, I'm afraid your Rev 6:15 is a red herring. It is just an oddity of Stephen's compiled text, the word clearly was only ever ischuroi.
Ah, I have it now. I think you are referring to Scrivener's attempt to recreate the Greek Text behind the Authorised Version. So in quoting both Stephens and Scrivener as editors we are going around in a circle.
Any comments here?
Zechariah14