Steven Avery
Administrator
LaParola
Hoskier (no Andreas)
Schmid
NA-28
Hoskier (no Andreas)
Schmid
NA-28
Michael Swift on 8 'holies' in Revelation 4:8 - Trisagion
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Oecumenius analysis
Villiers
https://www.academia.edu/11317338/H...gTe6MwwstPtK7K4_DKTWzsuH6DhDLnn1EccLtZUmGSmY0
And
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43167439.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/11317241/N...3aOIPppba40N5b-wCdrCpIiO2ApQlHeRChEjWygQrP7Qo
It is worthwhile to return to the number seven at this point, because it
offers another example of Oecumenius’s awareness of symbols and num-
bers,” and also shows how Oecumenius explains the same number or
word differently in various parts of his commentary.
It has been pointed out that Oecumenius reads the number seven lite-
rally when he interprets the seven hills. In his comments on the throne
vision (Rev 4:8; in apoc. 3.9), he reflects explicitly on the nature of seven
as a symbol. He is aware of the special nature of the number. At the same
time he shows how carefully he reads the text, noting the number of times
a phrase is used in Revelation. He points out how the text describes the
four living beings as calling out “holy” seven times. He then interprets
this number as signifying “often and incessantly.”
Once again he reveals his awareness of the important role of seven as a
numerical symbol in holy traditions. To strengthen his argument that one
should attribute special meaning to the number, he elaborates on the
popularity of the number seven in Scripture with the remark that “the
number seven has been handed down many times in Holy Scripture.” He
lists as examples such instances as “she who was barren gave birth to
seven and she w
Villiers
https://www.academia.edu/11317338/H...gTe6MwwstPtK7K4_DKTWzsuH6DhDLnn1EccLtZUmGSmY0
And
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43167439.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/11317241/N...3aOIPppba40N5b-wCdrCpIiO2ApQlHeRChEjWygQrP7Qo
It is worthwhile to return to the number seven at this point, because it
offers another example of Oecumenius’s awareness of symbols and num-
bers,” and also shows how Oecumenius explains the same number or
word differently in various parts of his commentary.
It has been pointed out that Oecumenius reads the number seven lite-
rally when he interprets the seven hills. In his comments on the throne
vision (Rev 4:8; in apoc. 3.9), he reflects explicitly on the nature of seven
as a symbol. He is aware of the special nature of the number. At the same
time he shows how carefully he reads the text, noting the number of times
a phrase is used in Revelation. He points out how the text describes the
four living beings as calling out “holy” seven times. He then interprets
this number as signifying “often and incessantly.”
Once again he reveals his awareness of the important role of seven as a
numerical symbol in holy traditions. To strengthen his argument that one
should attribute special meaning to the number, he elaborates on the
popularity of the number seven in Scripture with the remark that “the
number seven has been handed down many times in Holy Scripture.” He
lists as examples such instances as “she who was barren gave birth to
seven and she w
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Crazy Readings of Codex Sinaiticus
LJ Thriepland
https://www.followintruth.com/crazy-readings-of-codex-sinaiticus
REVELATION 4:8
This is a verse that includes a triadic declaration. Holy Holy Holy. 3 times the Greek word Ἅγιος (Hagios) is repeated.
The KJV has Holy, holy, holy.
Revelation 4:8 (AV)
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him;
and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty,
which was, and is, and is to come. KJV
The triadic holy holy holy is found in all major Bibles, including but not limited to the NIV, ESV, NASB, NET Bible, ISV, ASV, ERV and youngs literal Bible.
The reading is found in the Westcott and Hort text
καὶ τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα, ἓν καθ’ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν· καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος Κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
The Greek of the UBS 4 and the Nestle Aland 27 text both read the same with Ἅγιος repeated 3 times.
καὶ τὰ τέσσερα / τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ’ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν· καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος Κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
In codex Sinaiticus, however, Ἅγιος (Holy) is repeated 8 times.
The verse is written as follows
και αναπαυϲιν ουχ εξοϲαν ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ λεγοντεϲ αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ ˙ αγιοϲ αγιοϲ κϲ ┬ θϲ παντοκρατωρ · ο ην και ο ων και ο ερχομενοϲ”
We can put aside the the fact that this is NOT a scribal copyist error. You don’t write a word 8 times instead of 3 as a mistake. EVEN allowing for a very unlikely repeat of the 3 words this would still only allow for a maximum of 6 times and if we allowed for the copyist to somehow have repeated it 3 times we would come to a total of 9 repetitions not 8. The obvious fact is this was a deliberate and conscious decision that the scribe made to include the word 8 times. This, then is not a scribal error but a deliberate scribal alteration.
It is interesting that the UBS and Nestle Aland text do not include the 8 repetitions, especially as so much authority is given to this manuscript along with Vaticanus. The fact that the entire book of Revelation is missing from Vaticanus so we have no reading at all in this verse from the manuscript to counter the reading of Sinaiticus. This then would make the none inclusion of the 8 fold repetition found in Sinaiticus a dishonest exclusion, especially when we take into consideration the longer ending of Mark and the authority given to these 2 manuscripts there.
Now, although I cannot in any way prove a direct connection, and there may well not actually be one, it must at least be noted that there is a possibility that this is an Octoecho or at least an allusion to one, which was not developed as a concept until much later with John of Damascus in the 7th or 8th century.
If this is, in fact, an Octoecho then this would categorically rule out Sinaiticus from being a 4th century manuscript.
LJ Thriepland
https://www.followintruth.com/crazy-readings-of-codex-sinaiticus
REVELATION 4:8
This is a verse that includes a triadic declaration. Holy Holy Holy. 3 times the Greek word Ἅγιος (Hagios) is repeated.
The KJV has Holy, holy, holy.
Revelation 4:8 (AV)
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him;
and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty,
which was, and is, and is to come. KJV
The triadic holy holy holy is found in all major Bibles, including but not limited to the NIV, ESV, NASB, NET Bible, ISV, ASV, ERV and youngs literal Bible.
The reading is found in the Westcott and Hort text
καὶ τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα, ἓν καθ’ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν· καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος Κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
The Greek of the UBS 4 and the Nestle Aland 27 text both read the same with Ἅγιος repeated 3 times.
καὶ τὰ τέσσερα / τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ’ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν· καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος Κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
In codex Sinaiticus, however, Ἅγιος (Holy) is repeated 8 times.
The verse is written as follows
και αναπαυϲιν ουχ εξοϲαν ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ λεγοντεϲ αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ · αγιοϲ ˙ αγιοϲ αγιοϲ κϲ ┬ θϲ παντοκρατωρ · ο ην και ο ων και ο ερχομενοϲ”
We can put aside the the fact that this is NOT a scribal copyist error. You don’t write a word 8 times instead of 3 as a mistake. EVEN allowing for a very unlikely repeat of the 3 words this would still only allow for a maximum of 6 times and if we allowed for the copyist to somehow have repeated it 3 times we would come to a total of 9 repetitions not 8. The obvious fact is this was a deliberate and conscious decision that the scribe made to include the word 8 times. This, then is not a scribal error but a deliberate scribal alteration.
It is interesting that the UBS and Nestle Aland text do not include the 8 repetitions, especially as so much authority is given to this manuscript along with Vaticanus. The fact that the entire book of Revelation is missing from Vaticanus so we have no reading at all in this verse from the manuscript to counter the reading of Sinaiticus. This then would make the none inclusion of the 8 fold repetition found in Sinaiticus a dishonest exclusion, especially when we take into consideration the longer ending of Mark and the authority given to these 2 manuscripts there.
Now, although I cannot in any way prove a direct connection, and there may well not actually be one, it must at least be noted that there is a possibility that this is an Octoecho or at least an allusion to one, which was not developed as a concept until much later with John of Damascus in the 7th or 8th century.
If this is, in fact, an Octoecho then this would categorically rule out Sinaiticus from being a 4th century manuscript.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Bible Versions Disc Board-A New Champion Presents Another Ludicrous Argument for "Simonides Wrote Sinaiticus"
His name is Michael Swift and, well, he isn't. One of the clearest evidences to me that Codex Sinaiticus is a work produced at Mt Athos by Simonides a
www.tapatalk.com
Feb 11, 2020#5
I did a little research into the term "octoechos." seems to me that Mr. Swift's description of the term is found wanting. It makes sense. Why would the *nine* "Ἅγιος" be called "octoechos?"
Here are some portions of articles:
Octœchos is the name of a service-book used in the Greek Church. It consists of two volumes (folio), and contains the particular hymns and services for every day of the week, a portion of the daily service being appropriated to some saint or festival besides those marked in the calendar.[1]
[1] John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Octœchos,” Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1894), 295.
Octoechos (Gk. ὀκτώηχος [βίβλος], ‘the book of eight tones’). A liturgical book in the E. Church which contains the variable parts of services on Sundays and weekdays when these services are not taken wholly from one of the other service books—the *Triodion, the *Pentecostarion, or the *Menaion. There are eight sets of tones (ὀκτὼ ἦχοι), one for each week, these variable parts recurring every eight weeks in the same order; hence the name. The cycle of tones begins on the Sunday after *Easter. This book is also known as the Paracleticē (Gk. παρακλητική, from παρακαλεῖν, to supplicate).[1]
[1] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1180.
It has nothing to do with Revelation 4:8. I have a Byzantine Lectionary and I looked through the "Octoechos" services. They do not include Revelation 4:8 in any of the scripture readings. (Why am I not surprised?)
Steven Avery
Administrator
Here is where cjab in CARM tried to handwave incremental expansion
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...edict-identity-fraud-theft.15475/post-1329471
The article you quote is talking about motives, not origin. It says:
Rather than reading, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty’, Sinaiticus ascribes holiness to God eight times – just one shy of a perfect nine
– which would be capable of crediting three ‘holies’ to each member of the Godhead.
While we stop short of attributing such a motive to our scribe, it is nonetheless interest-
ing that the later Trisagion Hymn does precisely that (i.e. 3 x Holy to each member of the Trinity). Perhaps the hymn’s origin can be
traced to this kind of incremental expansion.
"This kind of incremental expansion" posits no connection whatever between Sinaiticus and the Trisagion. The author of your article accepts Siniaticus as 4th century.
Moreover the number 8 is a sacred biblical number and appears in various matters connected with Old Testament Feasts and Temple worship.
So there is not any real grounds for positing an "incremental expansion." In fact Sinaiticus may be the original rendition, which was modified by Trinitarians to 3 x Holy. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. So in fact Sinaiticus Revelation may be the original text here, for all we know.
Moreover according to your author, Sinaiticus Revelation stands as a witness to very early commentaries and marginal renderings that have no place in modern bibles, and no place in the Byzantine Majority text. In so many respects Sinaiticus Revelation is sui generis. The conclusion from your article states:
Despite all of this, the text of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus is a far cry from
a full-blown commentary. First and foremost, the Codex contains a transcribed text.
As such, its primary role is to transmit the Apocalypse faithfully. Nonetheless, we can
discern a tendency to assist in its interpretation with the introduction of a variety of
changes. These could have accumulated over the years from marginal notes and/or
scribal redactions in the exemplar. With their introduction into the Codex, however, the
transcription begins to read like a commentary. Some of these redactions could have a
greater claim to ancestry, like the transformation of the Strong Angel in Revelation 10:1
or the prohibition against angelic violence in Revelation 9:15, especially since concerns
over these verses can be tracked to the third century. The more explicit Christological and
even anti-Arian redactions would appear to be contemporaneous with the transcription
of the book in the fourth century. That is not to indicate that our scribes were apologists,
who ‘thought up’ such changes in scribendo.43 Rather, it is likely that these redactions
were already present in their exemplar(s), even if they were introduced fairly recently.
Who introduced them and the particular processes behind their insertion, however,
remains unknown and underscores the need for further study of Codex Sinaiticus and its
intriguing readings.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...edict-identity-fraud-theft.15475/post-1329471
The article you quote is talking about motives, not origin. It says:
Rather than reading, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty’, Sinaiticus ascribes holiness to God eight times – just one shy of a perfect nine
– which would be capable of crediting three ‘holies’ to each member of the Godhead.
While we stop short of attributing such a motive to our scribe, it is nonetheless interest-
ing that the later Trisagion Hymn does precisely that (i.e. 3 x Holy to each member of the Trinity). Perhaps the hymn’s origin can be
traced to this kind of incremental expansion.
"This kind of incremental expansion" posits no connection whatever between Sinaiticus and the Trisagion. The author of your article accepts Siniaticus as 4th century.
Moreover the number 8 is a sacred biblical number and appears in various matters connected with Old Testament Feasts and Temple worship.
So there is not any real grounds for positing an "incremental expansion." In fact Sinaiticus may be the original rendition, which was modified by Trinitarians to 3 x Holy. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. So in fact Sinaiticus Revelation may be the original text here, for all we know.
Moreover according to your author, Sinaiticus Revelation stands as a witness to very early commentaries and marginal renderings that have no place in modern bibles, and no place in the Byzantine Majority text. In so many respects Sinaiticus Revelation is sui generis. The conclusion from your article states:
Despite all of this, the text of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus is a far cry from
a full-blown commentary. First and foremost, the Codex contains a transcribed text.
As such, its primary role is to transmit the Apocalypse faithfully. Nonetheless, we can
discern a tendency to assist in its interpretation with the introduction of a variety of
changes. These could have accumulated over the years from marginal notes and/or
scribal redactions in the exemplar. With their introduction into the Codex, however, the
transcription begins to read like a commentary. Some of these redactions could have a
greater claim to ancestry, like the transformation of the Strong Angel in Revelation 10:1
or the prohibition against angelic violence in Revelation 9:15, especially since concerns
over these verses can be tracked to the third century. The more explicit Christological and
even anti-Arian redactions would appear to be contemporaneous with the transcription
of the book in the fourth century. That is not to indicate that our scribes were apologists,
who ‘thought up’ such changes in scribendo.43 Rather, it is likely that these redactions
were already present in their exemplar(s), even if they were introduced fairly recently.
Who introduced them and the particular processes behind their insertion, however,
remains unknown and underscores the need for further study of Codex Sinaiticus and its
intriguing readings.
That's OK.
Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - 2025 NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT.../24013107221682952/?mibextid=9A6qFBUwRkuKZxrg
In Codex Vaticanus, (2066) the later books (Hebrews to Revelation) where damaged and so they were replaced sometime around the 15th century in a later cursive form known as 'minuscule script'. This image here shows an interesting textual variant from Revelation 4:8 which reads in the KJV as ". . . Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." In this manuscript, there are 9 "Holy"s. This is one of my favorite variants, and undoubtedly shows the scribes inclination towards God's holiness!
SA
Note that Codex Sinaiticus gives you a curious anomaly, the eight holies are a later Byzantine reading, and are quite inconsistent with a theory of 4th century production.
Damon Lee Gang
Holy Holy Holy makes sense as it is consistent Isa 6:3 - And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
Nick Sayers
Nehemiah Gordon was convinced that 4:8 was referring to Isaiah 6:3.
============================
https://business.facebook.com/perma...S2P5sDsum1LJ9TbGRpPy4GS2ul&id=100090248964292
============================
How many "Holies" should be written at Revelation 4:8?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Djfueyvys
@ariesvanmeeteren4383
Aune mentions a few more variants missing from ECM:
1x hagios (2351) and 7x hagios (15th century mss Andreas L1678)
me now you're trolling me have you ever heard the CDC siaticus referred to as
37:43
the Sinai Bible the only time I have ever heard of it referred to as the Sinai Bible uh was when I was watching
Wes Huff destroy Billy Carson uh in that discussion uh that's the only time I've
ever heard it called the Sinai Bible i've never heard I've never heard it called anything other than that anywhere
else in the literature never seen it never heard about it uh I think I think Billy Carson just called it that because
it sounds cool it does kind of have a a cool ring to it right the Sinai Bible it's a Sinai Bible so So um yeah so I I
I'm guessing that you're somewhat serious there um to see if Billy Carson had some sort of um justification for
calling it the Sinai Bible i don't think so never i've never come across that in
all of my readings and and all of that stuff never never never never never never so but you know if I could just
pull it off my shelf here and say this is saticus I actually don't own one of those so I do everything online
uh all right excuse me same here yes yes all
38:51
right so we're going to go to the INTF site for this um because this is
you know the Sinai Bible was scribed by ancient aliens." It's like uh what was watching
48:51
National Geographic at like 3 in the morning uh Jew and Greek actually if you look up CODC siakus in
Wikipedia it says it's also known as the Sinai Bible i'd be curious you can go in
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT.../24013107221682952/?mibextid=9A6qFBUwRkuKZxrg
In Codex Vaticanus, (2066) the later books (Hebrews to Revelation) where damaged and so they were replaced sometime around the 15th century in a later cursive form known as 'minuscule script'. This image here shows an interesting textual variant from Revelation 4:8 which reads in the KJV as ". . . Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." In this manuscript, there are 9 "Holy"s. This is one of my favorite variants, and undoubtedly shows the scribes inclination towards God's holiness!
SA
Note that Codex Sinaiticus gives you a curious anomaly, the eight holies are a later Byzantine reading, and are quite inconsistent with a theory of 4th century production.
Damon Lee Gang
Holy Holy Holy makes sense as it is consistent Isa 6:3 - And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
Nick Sayers
Nehemiah Gordon was convinced that 4:8 was referring to Isaiah 6:3.
============================
https://business.facebook.com/perma...S2P5sDsum1LJ9TbGRpPy4GS2ul&id=100090248964292
============================
How many "Holies" should be written at Revelation 4:8?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Djfueyvys
@ariesvanmeeteren4383
Aune mentions a few more variants missing from ECM:
1x hagios (2351) and 7x hagios (15th century mss Andreas L1678)
37:43
the Sinai Bible the only time I have ever heard of it referred to as the Sinai Bible uh was when I was watching
Wes Huff destroy Billy Carson uh in that discussion uh that's the only time I've
ever heard it called the Sinai Bible i've never heard I've never heard it called anything other than that anywhere
else in the literature never seen it never heard about it uh I think I think Billy Carson just called it that because
it sounds cool it does kind of have a a cool ring to it right the Sinai Bible it's a Sinai Bible so So um yeah so I I
I'm guessing that you're somewhat serious there um to see if Billy Carson had some sort of um justification for
calling it the Sinai Bible i don't think so never i've never come across that in
all of my readings and and all of that stuff never never never never never never so but you know if I could just
pull it off my shelf here and say this is saticus I actually don't own one of those so I do everything online
uh all right excuse me same here yes yes all
38:51
right so we're going to go to the INTF site for this um because this is
you know the Sinai Bible was scribed by ancient aliens." It's like uh what was watching
48:51
National Geographic at like 3 in the morning uh Jew and Greek actually if you look up CODC siakus in
Wikipedia it says it's also known as the Sinai Bible i'd be curious you can go in
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Revelation 1-5, Volume 52A (2017)
David Edward Aune
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1ErDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA269
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1ErDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA272
@ariesvanmeeteren4383
9 days ago
Aune mentions a few more variants missing from ECM:
1x hagios (2351) and 7x hagios (15th century mss Andreas L1678)
David Edward Aune
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1ErDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA269
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1ErDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA272
9 days ago
Aune mentions a few more variants missing from ECM:
1x hagios (2351) and 7x hagios (15th century mss Andreas L1678)
Steven Avery
Administrator
Revelation A Commentary
Brian K. Blount
4:8b–11 A Hymn of Counterpraise
8b “Holy, holy, holy,a
Lord God, the Almighty,
the one who was, who is, and who is com
a. The adjective hagios (holy) appears seven times in Andr l1678, eight times in *; nine times in K, and three times in other manuscripts. The threefold hagios, which agrees with the Old Testament text being quoted (Isa 6:3 LXX) and has superior manuscript support, is to be preferred. The variants arose either for numerological reasons or by conflation of the various numbers mentioned in the passage.
Brian K. Blount
4:8b–11 A Hymn of Counterpraise
8b “Holy, holy, holy,a
Lord God, the Almighty,
the one who was, who is, and who is com
a. The adjective hagios (holy) appears seven times in Andr l1678, eight times in *; nine times in K, and three times in other manuscripts. The threefold hagios, which agrees with the Old Testament text being quoted (Isa 6:3 LXX) and has superior manuscript support, is to be preferred. The variants arose either for numerological reasons or by conflation of the various numbers mentioned in the passage.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
(2351) and 7x hagios (15th century mss Andreas L1678)
Check location
Check location
Steven Avery
Administrator
Dwayne Green gives special mention to:
Robert Adam Boyd's
"The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version" (2022)
https://archive.org/details/tcent/page/473/mode/1up
d
4:8 holy | holy; holy, holy, holy; holy, holy, holy BYZ HF PCK
Dwayne Green video
19:45
nonetheless um Adam Boyd on the other hand so he's done some work recently
very recently u with the book of Revelation he's currently working on publishing something if he hasn't
already and I asked him about this uh textual variant as well and he gave me a
little snippet uh from his PDF file uh of his own commentary and I'll just I'll
just read it for you here because he comes to a different conclusion same evidence same ideas same internal
criteria uh different conclusion so Adam Boyd writes he says the external support
for Hagios appearing nine times is rather weak okay and this is based on
his collection of of revelation manuscripts into certain groupings okay
he says "If the ninetime occurrence of Haggias were original it would be hard to imagine scribes intentionally
omitting six of the occurrences which could be perceived as diminishing the holiness of God it is easier to imagine
scribes expanding the text to magnify the holiness of God."
So Adam here uh Adam Boyd what he's saying is that it's more likely that a scribe is going to see three holies and
be like "hm God is much more holier than three holies so let's write it in six more times for a total of nine." Or
maybe one scribe who had a one too many one too many coffees says "Let's write it in 13 times let's do it 10 more times
we got three there let's put it in 10 more times." And so um Adam is saying
that that's more likely to happen because what's not likely to happen according to Adam is that if the
original was indeed uh nine he can't see a scribe taking any of those away
because you would be lessening the holiness of God uh in the manuscript and
so that's uh that's Adam Boyd's position so we have Adam and excuse me
So we have Adam and Dr pickering who are on different different wavelengths
different wavelengths there we go um so for me I I tend to agree with Adam uh
simply because um it it just makes more sense it's not
22:02
likely that someone's going to add in something uh and again we're going to take a look at a couple manuscripts because there's a few of them where some
Robert Adam Boyd's
"The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version" (2022)
https://archive.org/details/tcent/page/473/mode/1up
d
4:8 holy | holy; holy, holy, holy; holy, holy, holy BYZ HF PCK
Dwayne Green video
19:45
nonetheless um Adam Boyd on the other hand so he's done some work recently
very recently u with the book of Revelation he's currently working on publishing something if he hasn't
already and I asked him about this uh textual variant as well and he gave me a
little snippet uh from his PDF file uh of his own commentary and I'll just I'll
just read it for you here because he comes to a different conclusion same evidence same ideas same internal
criteria uh different conclusion so Adam Boyd writes he says the external support
for Hagios appearing nine times is rather weak okay and this is based on
his collection of of revelation manuscripts into certain groupings okay
he says "If the ninetime occurrence of Haggias were original it would be hard to imagine scribes intentionally
omitting six of the occurrences which could be perceived as diminishing the holiness of God it is easier to imagine
scribes expanding the text to magnify the holiness of God."
So Adam here uh Adam Boyd what he's saying is that it's more likely that a scribe is going to see three holies and
be like "hm God is much more holier than three holies so let's write it in six more times for a total of nine." Or
maybe one scribe who had a one too many one too many coffees says "Let's write it in 13 times let's do it 10 more times
we got three there let's put it in 10 more times." And so um Adam is saying
that that's more likely to happen because what's not likely to happen according to Adam is that if the
original was indeed uh nine he can't see a scribe taking any of those away
because you would be lessening the holiness of God uh in the manuscript and
so that's uh that's Adam Boyd's position so we have Adam and excuse me
So we have Adam and Dr pickering who are on different different wavelengths
different wavelengths there we go um so for me I I tend to agree with Adam uh
simply because um it it just makes more sense it's not
22:02
likely that someone's going to add in something uh and again we're going to take a look at a couple manuscripts because there's a few of them where some
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Comments on Dwayne Green
How many "Holies" should be written at Revelation 4:8?
One got lost reconstruct
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Djfueyvy
Also place on Facebook discussion page noting that Youtube loses comments
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/24013107221682952/
Discussion
http://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/24014006488259692/
Steven Avery:
Note that Codex Sinaiticus gives you a curious anomaly, the eight holies are a later Byzantine reading, and are quite inconsistent with a theory of 4th century production!
@Dwayne_Green
We kinda run into the same issue here as with the Comma, that there are just not many pre 4th century witnesses, so there's really no way to tell if the "9 holies" are a specifically later byzantine reading.
Dwayne
I'm not married to an early siniaticus, so it could very well be, and that would certainly shake things up in the TC world... But how do you know that the 9 holies are not early in the Greek tradition? Evidently there were differences between the Latin and Greek traditions, like the comma for example, perhaps this is another one of those differences?
Steven
@Dwayne_Green - with the heavenly witnesses there are TONS of early church writer references and Latin manuscripts in the 4th, 5th, 6th centuries, while the manuscripts with expansion of Holies are ALL late, except for the Sinaiticus anomaly, which is due to it being a 1900s ms.
=======================
The eight holies are a deliberate number, reflecting the Octoechos (they are not simply one lost from nine.) Benedict and Simonides would be well aware of this usage from:
Chrysanthos of Madytos (1770-1846)
orthodoxwiki.org
On my study page I have the Michael Swift (possibly a pseudonym) of the significance of the eight holies.
How many "Holies" should be written at Revelation 4:8?
One got lost reconstruct
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Djfueyvy
Also place on Facebook discussion page noting that Youtube loses comments
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/24013107221682952/
Discussion
http://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/24014006488259692/
Steven Avery:
Note that Codex Sinaiticus gives you a curious anomaly, the eight holies are a later Byzantine reading, and are quite inconsistent with a theory of 4th century production!
@Dwayne_Green
We kinda run into the same issue here as with the Comma, that there are just not many pre 4th century witnesses, so there's really no way to tell if the "9 holies" are a specifically later byzantine reading.
Dwayne
I'm not married to an early siniaticus, so it could very well be, and that would certainly shake things up in the TC world... But how do you know that the 9 holies are not early in the Greek tradition? Evidently there were differences between the Latin and Greek traditions, like the comma for example, perhaps this is another one of those differences?
Steven
@Dwayne_Green - with the heavenly witnesses there are TONS of early church writer references and Latin manuscripts in the 4th, 5th, 6th centuries, while the manuscripts with expansion of Holies are ALL late, except for the Sinaiticus anomaly, which is due to it being a 1900s ms.
=======================
The eight holies are a deliberate number, reflecting the Octoechos (they are not simply one lost from nine.) Benedict and Simonides would be well aware of this usage from:
Chrysanthos of Madytos (1770-1846)
Chrysanthos of Madytos - OrthodoxWiki
On my study page I have the Michael Swift (possibly a pseudonym) of the significance of the eight holies.
Last edited: