The discernment of textual matters in the Book of Revelation differs from the rest of the NT. Alan Kurschner’s remarks concerning Rev 5:9, 10 I would think are the standard view of the CT proponents, and not only the CT, but some MT (Majority Text – as in Hodges and Farstad) advocates as well. In this passage
three differing textforms vie for dominance: the NU (Nestle-Aland/UBS), TR 1894, and the Byzantine / Majority Text-type. In this passage not only does the TR contend with the CT, but with the MT!
In this discussion I will be drawing on a book I have mentioned elsewhere on PB, and which is crucial for understanding the textual issues involved when the AV / TR differs from the Majority Text, and in particular in the Book of Revelation, namely,
Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence (also titled
When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”), by Jack Moorman. I recommend it as having the latest and most comprehensive information on this topic – to my knowledge, as of this writing.
It is available at The Bible For Today online bookstore (
http://www.biblefortoday.org/search_result.asp), under the title,
Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence, and both books have the same item #: 1617, and can be purchased from them ($16). Possessing information like this is equivalent to being well-armed in combat. If your mind is not fortified with solid facts it will get blown away when someone puffs at you with seeming knowledge.
With these two verses there is a CT component involved, but first let’s look at the MT.
I will only touch upon some general principles of the AV – MT disparities here, as I want to get into Revelation. Hodges & Farstad (HF), as well as Robinson and Pierpont (RP), in their respective editions of the Majority Text, relied on Hermann Von Soden’s 1913 edition of a massive gathering and collation of the “majority” cursive manuscripts. Although remarkable for the enormity of information gathered, as can be seen in its apparatus, later scholars examining it have declared it “honeycombed with errors” (H.C. Hoskier;
JTS, 15-1914, p. 307)
Frederik Wisse, in his,
The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence (Eerdmans, 1982), says
Once the extent of error is seen, the word “inaccuracy” becomes a euphemism…
…von Soden’s inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used. (pp. 16, 17)
Yet, as Moorman remarks, “…Hodges and Farstad went ahead and used von Soden to reconstruct the Received Text!” (
When the KJV Departs…, p. 11)
What Moorman brings out, Von Soden's collating of the MSS was very incomplete, and relatively few of the thousands of MSS were represented. It was not in the least a depiction of how the majority of cursives read.
The “Majority Text” of the Book of Revelation, however, is different, as it does not rely on Von Soden’s work. It relies on the more comprehensive and complete work of Herman C. Hoskier, in his two-volume,
Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents With the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together with the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers. Hoskier was also the author of the two-volume devastating-to-the-Westcott/Hort (CT)-production,
Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. So why does the MT of Hodges & Farstad differ from the TR (1894) if they used the superior work of Hoskier?
Please note that I am using Jack Moorman’s aforementioned work for my writing here.
What Hoskier showed, basically, is that there are two groups of manuscripts exhibited in those that have the Apocalypse, the Andreas group and the 046 group. Moorman says, “Hoskier did not elevate 046 but merely cited the data.” (p. 17) Hodges and Farstad did not allot to the Andreas group all the MSS due it, and thus “the 046 group in the Majority Text edition is made to look much larger and appear dominant.” (Moorman, Ibid.)
How this happened is through their use of the scholar Josef Schmid’s work and their misconstruing his count of the respective MSS in Andreas and 046. The places where the MT and the TR 1894 differ in Revelation – save at the very end of the book, which we have discussed elsewhere at PB – is due to this.
Moorman proceeds with an extended discussion of various factors and issues in this matter. He remarks,
At the outset the Bible believer will be very happy to know that [or is it “what” –SMR] Hoskier’s basic conclusion was toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation:
I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (The John Rylands Bulletin 19-1922/23, p 118.)
It should be noted that this exemplary MS used by Erasmus was of the Andreas group, the readings of which we find in the AV. Perhaps needless to say, we do not think it coincidence this primary manuscript fell into the hands of Erasmus. For we believe that the Lord providentially preserved His word, and the only place it makes sense to have been preserved in was the Greek Textus Receptus as discerned by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the AV translators, and given to us in the AV.
No doubt such remarks will bring the wrath of the gods down upon me, but I shall look to the Lord for help.
----------
Here we have the introduction to our topic: there are two basic text groupings comprising the varying readings in Revelation –
within the Majority Text camp! – as well as some CT readings. The MT groups are the 046 and the Andreas. After discussing the passage a while, I will go more into the qualities of the Andreas vis-à-vis 046.
I would like to consider Rev 5:9 first, as the CT has a reading in it – an omission, actually – that directly bears on our discussion. Both the MT (HF & RP editions concurring) and the TR agree against the CT by having the passage read,
tw qew hmaj “
us to God” rather than the CT’s,
tw qew “
to God”, with the word “men” being supplied by the editors, and not in the Greek.
KJV: And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed
us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation
NASB: And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase
unto God with thy blood [men] of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation
The late Dr. Bruce Metzger, in his
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1975 ed. UBS) says regarding the CT reading,
Although the evidence for tw qew is slight (A eth), this reading best accounts for the origin of the others.
The CT’s reading (in the 1975 edition) is given a {C} rating which indicates that in “the mind of the Committee….there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading” (p. xxviii). [Note Sept 9, 07: It has been pointed out to me by Mr. Kurschner that in the latest edition of 1994 the Committee decided to raise the rating to an {A}, which in their eyes "signifies that the text is certain." This verse, and its UBS "rating", will be further discussed in the forthcoming thread, "Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin".]
So the CT’s reading is admittedly conjectural and uncertain. And yet it is pivotal in the Committee’s view of the correct reading in Rev 5:10,
KJV: And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and
we shall reign on the earth.
NASB: and madest them [to be] unto our God a kingdom and priests; and
they reign upon earth.
We are only looking at the TR’s
basileusomen “we shall reign” vs. the NASB’s
basileusousin “they reign” for the moment (the MT’s 046 does agree with the CT here). Metzger says of this,
Of the three variant readings, it is obvious that basileusomen [of the TR] is a secondary development, arising from the introduction of hmaj [us] in the preceding verse…
It is amazing how far a doubtful conjecture can be stretched! From {C}
uncertainty to apparent certainty!
The CT’s replacement of “kings” with “a kingdom” we will not bother with, as the TR and MT agree, and where they
disagree is our concern now.
And that is with “made us” –
ettoihsaj hmaj – vs. “madest them” –
ettoihsaj autouj – of the Andreas group of mss and the 046 group, respectively. Before comparing the merits of these two groups, let me mention that, as Moorman notes, “There is no previous mention as to who ‘them’ would be; ‘us’ refers to the 24 elders representing the church before the throne.” He says the same regarding the “they reign” we looked at previously.
(Alan Kurschner’s remark, “…since the four living creatures are clearly celestial beings, it is absurd to argue that they have been redeemed” – hoping to obviate the “us” in the song – assumes the four beasts, besides falling down before the Lamb together with the elders, had also joined in singing the song the 24 elders sang; will one assume they were playing the harps also? I don’t think so.)
Moorman is right, there is no prior group “they” could refer to. It is
us – they sang – who have been redeemed! The 046 reading – and the 046 readings throughout Revelation – are not to be accounted genuine. One thing I like about the margin notes in the NKJV is it gives the variants and their text-types, so I can see the situation with regard to other versions.
Hodges does admit, “…the Textus Receptus much more closely approximates Andreas than 046 – in fact, hardly resembles the latter group at all” (from “The Ecclesiatical Text of Revelation,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1961, p. 121).
Hoskier says,
We trace the origin of the B (046) group not further back than 8th or possibly 7th century. Now many many cursives are identified with this family group, whereas in the main our Textus Receptus is not, and has at any rate avoided the bulk of this revision (Apocalypse p. xxxvii)
We cannot get much further back for the Apoc. than 200 A.D., and here we ought to come close to the ipsissima verba…[Talking of agreement in Hippolytus and Methodius in Andreas readings, Hoskier says,] This is what we mean when we say it is dangerous to tamper with the oldest readings of the TR (Ibid., p. xli).
This may be the proper place to emphasize why the Textus Receptus of the Apocalypse is intrinsically good. Apoc. 1, on which it is founded, is an old text. See how it comes out in Hippolytus…
It is actually possible to reconstruct a first-class text from Hipp.—47—and Textus Receptus, and a far better one than that of any of our five uncials. Why? Well, apart from a few idiosyncrasies, which the whole body of subsequent evidence rejects, Hippolytus represents as old a text as we can get. Then 47, also apart from a few distinguishing idiosyncrasies easily identified and rejected owing to lack of other support, is throughout a straightforward, careful witness. And lastly, the Textus Receptus, apart from any instinctive and intrinsic excellence, happens to prove back to the very order of words used by Hippolytus’ codex; in places where t.r. disagrees we let 47+Hipp. guide us and they nearly always lead us in the right path, namely with the consensus of general evidence.(Ibid., p. xlvii)
Hodges and Farsted do admit, “There is no reason why the parental exemplar of the Andreas texttype could not go back well into the second century.” (
The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, p. xxxvi) And yet, besides misconstruing Schmid’s count of Andreas mss, they were also influenced by opinions of his that prejudiced them with regard to it. Moorman does a review of both Hoskier’s and Schmid’s count of the mss for each group, and Andreas is at least equal in number or greater than 046. In places, Moorman’s work is quite technical.
Moorman summarizes, “The great number of changes Hodges and Farsted introduced into the text of Revelation is based on their choice of the 046 MSS rather than the Andrean. Apart from the fact that the Andrean text is older, more cohesive, and has been the traditional text for the Apocalypse; the editors have greatly misrepresented the relative number of each.” (p. 125)
So it is evident that Mr. Kirschner’s statements that the AV’s reading of “us” reflects an “inferior” text is unfounded. Regarding his “it is found in a minimum of patristic and versional witnesses”, I suppose I could list the Fathers and versions to counter this, but I have gone on quite long already! Perhaps I shall do so shortly. On another of his points, I am not pretrib, but amil, and the account in the AV does no violence at all to that.
Those who hold to the KJV or NKJV or MKJV need not be concerned that the Lord has not kept His promise to preserve His word, and that we have it in our hands.
On closing this I will repeat what Hoskier’s basic conclusion was toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation:
I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (The John Rylands Bulletin 19-1922/23, p 118.)
Steve