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
And
https://www.academia.edu/11317241/N...3aOIPppba40N5b-wCdrCpIiO2ApQlHeRChEjWygQrP7Qo
Villiers
HISTORY, MYSTICISM AND ETHICS IN OECUMENIUS: A HERMENEUTICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE EARLIEST EXTANT GREEK COMMENTARY ON REVELATION
This article discusses the earliest extant Greek commentary on Revelation, written by Oecumenius in the sixth century C.E. It investigates first of all the discovery of the commentary’s manuscript in the twentieth century and the subsequent
www.academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu/11317241/N...3aOIPppba40N5b-wCdrCpIiO2ApQlHeRChEjWygQrP7Qo
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 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 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.
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.