In the process of finalizing my Revelation with Greek document for publishing, I am searching for every ? in the footnotes, in order to determine a more definite conclusion for the critical apparatus if possible, and eliminate the ?. There was a ? after a reading of MS GA 1888 in Revelation 2:13. This is an 11th century minuscule residing in Jerusalem, with the reference number 181 in Hoskier’s collation in Volume 2 of “Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse.” As you can see in the attached image snips, Hoskier says 181* (original hand) reads αντειπασ and then notes that the word και following was erased.
Whereas the Münster transcription site says the MS reads ἀντίπας, with no indication of a corrector regarding that. The blue text shows that και is the original hand, and a java script mouse-over window shows that a corrector erased και.
But here is a snip of the actual manuscript, GA1888:
I think Hoskier is correct that there is a correction regarding αντιπας. I am told that what looks like a circumflex accent above it may be some kind of indicator from the scribe to read a marginal note about a correction. So, I still have an unanswered question. Which is the original reading of 1888- ἀντίπας or ἀντεῖπας? I certainly understand why Hoskier left a ? after it. For comparison to the uncials, ℵ* C P 046 RP TH read Αντιπας, and ℵ² A SBL NA28 read Αντειπας. Would the correction be more likely to have moved toward 046 and the RP majority text? (Note that the Tyndale House ed. differs from the SBL and NA28.) This variant is not treated in the footnotes of the NA28 nor of the UBS5. However, there is a footnote in the Tyndale House edition that does reference Antipas, and it states that Codex A reads Αντιπας, whereas Codex A definitely reads Αντειπας. See image of Codex A below, where Antipas is the last word in the image. Perhaps the Münster and Tyndale House editors are considering ἀντίπας versus ἀντεῖπας as a trivial difference in spelling of the same word, and not worth noting. (Except that elsewhere, the Münster site does note this kind of difference.) One problem with Codex A is that its Π, Pi, usually has a very faint or even invisible top crossbar, and so, for example, here with Antipas, it looks like three Iotas in a row and then AC.
There are twenty-four or so textual variants in the Textus Receptus text of the Revelation of John which have extremely slim or zero Greek manuscript support. Usually, two handwritten Greek manuscripts agree with these readings. These MSS are 296 and 2049. They used to be known as 57 and 141 respectively.
However, H. C. Hoskier, who did a two-volume investigation of all the manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John, says this about them in Text 2, p. 156, lines 26,27: “This MS 187 with 57 and 141 must not be accorded any weight whatsoever. They are brought into the record because of their very connection with the printed text.” See also Text 2, p. 156, lines 26,27, where he says “… 57 et 141 ex ed. typ. exscripti.” The Latin means “copied from printed edition(s).”
In their own pages which describe each, Hoskier had this to say. About 296 (old 57) he says in Text 1, p. 179, “I suppose I ought to eliminate 57 from the list altogether.” And on p. 180 Hoskier says, “So 57 becomes Colinaeus.”
About 2049, (old 141) he says in Text 1, p. 474, that MS 2049 is most like Erasmus’ 4th Edition, because the whole manuscript is word for word to it, except for one word, in 22:21, ἡμῶν for ὑμῶν. Which could easily have been an error made by the copyist when copying Erasmus. This exact variant is one of the most common mistakes scribes made throughout the Greek New Testament. There are a few uses of contractions, which differs from Erasmus not adding up to a word of difference, but that is to be expected from a scribe who was hand copying such a large document. It is reasonable to conclude that 2049 is a handwritten copy of Erasmus’ 4th edition (1527).
Below are snips from his book. I have also added these images to my Revelation with Greek document which you can download here.
EDIT: My next post updates this one, as I was mistaken in this post. But I will leave it for the images and information / illustration of the difficulties of reading New Testament Greek Ligatures.
As I posted before, I am currently busy updating and improving the footnotes to my translation of the Revelation of John, “The Apocalypse of John.” One of the ways I am expanding the footnotes, is specifying which Vulgate manuscripts (not just editions) support what reading. Also, where the Textus Receptus is divided, specifying which editions read what.
In this process, I have found several places in which I disagree with H. C. Hoskier’s collation of the TR editions. I do not know if he was relying on someone else’s collations, or if he looked at the original documents themselves. But the problem lies in understanding the ligatures for letter combinations that are used in Greek cursive manuscripts, including the Greek New Testament editions made by Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, and Stephens. Now, I possess PDF copies of the original cursive manuscripts of the following “Textus Receptus” editions. All 5 Erasmus editions, the 1550 Stephanus edition, the 1598 Beza edition, the 1624 Elzevir edition, plus the Complutensian Polyglot (1514).
Revelation 17:8 variant- καιπερ εστιν
There is a famous textual variant in Revelation chapter 17 verse 8 where the Textus Receptus disagrees with all Greek manuscripts and reads καιπερ εστιν. However, I found that I disagree with Hoskier regarding the readings of Erasmus’ editions 1, 3 and 4, as follows.
First, a snip showing what Hoskier says:
Erasmus Ed. 1 (1516): Hoskier says και περ is two words, I say one:
Erasmus Ed. 3 (1522) very clearly reads καί παρ, not καί περ:
Erasmus Ed. 4 (1527) very clearly reads καί παρ, not καί περ:
See here the difference- Erasmus Ed. 5 (1535) shows the ligature for περ:
I still offer my chart of Greek cursive ligatures for free (also thanks go to Vernon Eugene Kooy, PhD for his font). These above images and data are now included in my Revelation pdf, downloadable for free.
In my ( David Robert Palmer ) translation documents, I provide a critical apparatus in the footnotes, indicating what ancient Greek, Latin and other manuscripts support which Greek text reading. However, I have up to this point been dissatisfied with the citations of Latin Vulgate manuscripts. I had been getting them from the footnotes of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ editions, and also from, in the case of Revelation, on which I am currently working, H. C. Hoskier.
The problem I have with the Vulgate citations is that they are citing “editions.” They are not citing particular manuscripts of a certain date, but editions of all of them. For example, right now I am revising and expanding my footnotes in the Apocalypse of John. Quite often, the Textus Receptus and the King James Version have a reading that is found in no Greek manuscript, but only in one edition of the Vulgate, the “Clementine” edition, which is indicated by the sigla vg cl in the apparatuses. The majority reading in the same variant set may be supported by vg ww,st . The st stands for Stuttgart, which comes from a 5th century edition. The ww represents another critical edition, the Wordsworth-White.
Would it make a difference to you if you learned that the Clementine Vulgate dates from the year 1592, and was made for Pope Clement VIII? But, this Vulgate too, is an edition which seeks to ascertain the earliest text, especially of Jerome, and has been updated with revisions, to a final edition in 1995.
It gets murky when I try to cite the Latin evidence. A given Latin manuscript can be “Vetus Latina” or “Old Latin” in some books of the New Testament, while in Revelation or some other book, its text is considered “Vulgate” text.
So, for the Vulgate in Revelation I do use the sigla found in the UBS and NA footnotes for the Stuttgart, Wordsworth-White, and Clementine editions, but I also indicate when Hoskier or Tischendorf lets us know the readings of specific Vulgate manuscripts. These are:
am – Codex Amiatinus, beginning of the VIII century fu – Codex Fuldensis 541-546 tol – Codex Toletanus 950 dem – Codex Demidovianus XIII harl – Codex Harleianus, second half of the IX century lipss – 3 Leipzig Latin mss cited in Tischendorf 8th Edition
Revelation 22:19, the tree of life versus book of life
Demand has been expressed, that I add a complete Textual Criticism apparatus in my Revelation work concerning the textual variant in Revelation 22:19, the tree of life versus book of life. Especially, that I consult Hoskier’s work on this for early Versions and Church fathers and Church writers.
Nevertheless, I have added that data to my footnotes in my Revelation works, and uploaded them to my “new Bible translation” page. If you want to get right to the footnotes about Revelation 22:19, the tree of life versus book of life, you can also download them directly from here:
Collation of Textus Receptus editions now available for download on my translations page: Scrivener, F. H. A.: Appendix B: Collation of all editions of the so-called Textus Receptus (in a Hoskier work). Many people like to do a Bible Study pertaining to the underlying Greek Text that is used in the older Bibles compared to a new Bible.
Included in this post is an image of one of the pages of this work on the Textus Receptus.
One page from the Textus Receptus Collation by Scrivener
This is a collation of Textus Receptus editions
their differences, PDF, 1 MB. This document shows all the differences between Robert Stephens’ editions, Erasmus’ 5 editions (especially 1550), Elzevir 1624, and editions of Beza, Aldus, Colinaeus.
These all are called the “Textus Receptus” or “Received Text.”
By the term “Textus Receptus” is meant these various Greek New Testament editions from which the translators of the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, the Great Bible, and the King James Bible, translated, to make their English translations of the Bible.
Announcement: I have started a Lulu project to make Volume 2 of Hoskier’s “Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse” available in hard bound printed form from Lulu. It will be available in the near future at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bibletranslation