Rev. 17:8--printer's error in Erasmus?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, Jun 17, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Along with Revelation 16:5, another reading in the KJV that Edward F. Hills identified as "certainly erroneous" was:

    "Rev. 17:8 'and yet is,' instead of 'and shall come.' (Uncorrected printer's error in Erasmus)"
    (BELIEVING BIBLE STUDY, p. 83).

    Was this a printer's error in Erasmus' Greek text and was it overlooked and kept in the later editions of the Textus Receptus and in the KJV?
     
  2. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Logos: "Was this a printer's error in Erasmus' Greek text and was it overlooked and kept in the later editions of the Textus Receptus and in the KJV?"

    The TR reading KAIPER ESTIN ("and yet is"), which does *not* appear in any manuscript, patristic, or versional witness, seems to have been a one-letter corruption (very likely a typesetter's error, given the absence of any other evidence) from the known reading KAI PARESTIN ("and is present"), found in approximately 40 MSS and as a scholium in Erasmus' own copy of Revelation (MS 1).

    All other MSS (more than 150) read some form of KAI PARESTAI ("and will be present").

    Even though the meaning between the TR's KAIPER ESTIN and KAI PARESTIN is altered by a shift of word roots, Moorman attempts to minimize the problem by claiming that the TR reading and the 40-MSS minority variant "can translate virtually the same as the KJV," even though this is not really the case.

    In regard to the reading overwhelmingly supported by all other MSS ("and will be present"), Moorman clutches at straws, claiming that, even though "the context ... is the future Tribulation", somehow "it strains the sense to be looking at something that 'will come'".

    It certainly would be easier for KJVO defenders to agree with Hills on this point, and recognize an apparent compositor's error for what it was, and from that to move to a legitimate variant reading as more accurate and therefore more acceptable. But then, the same people who maintain that "strain at a gnat" is "advanced revelation" will not be likely to alter their position in this case either.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Four of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles) have the following
    rendering as their end of Revelation 17:8--"when they behold the beast that was and is not." These four Bibles do not have the words "and yet is" that are found in the KJV.
     

Share This Page

Loading...