Monday, February 18, 2019

Bruce Metzger's and Revelation 13:18 (666/616)--Screenshots

23 comments:

Duncan said...

Against Heresies book 5 chapter 30 says "616" is most likely a copyist error and it is really "666". - but this does not constitute evidence one way or the other.

Unless one thinks that Irenaeus holds some inspired authority.

Duncan said...

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/poxy/beast616.htm

Duncan said...

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11139/Daniel-B--Wallace-responds-to-article-on---the-number-of-the-Beast

Duncan said...

https://ehrmanblog.org/666-and-scribal-changes-of-the-text/

At this point I do not think Ehrman is including all manuscript evidence.

https://www.biblaridion.info/resources/666.pdf

Duncan said...

https://www.academia.edu/38156775/The_Greek_Text_of_Revelation_Oxford_Handbook_on_Revelation.pdf

Edgar Foster said...

Duncan, I'm just going to quickly say that it's standard procedure to view the church fathers as evidentiary when it comes to textual criticism. No one is saying that Irenaeus has divine authority, but his testimony is viewed as external evidence for the text. I'm not saying his words seal the deal, but they cannot be just waived aside as inconsequential either. That is not how we do history or TC.

Edgar Foster said...

We also cannot be sure that 616 is the earliest reading. In fact, both sources I quoted say the exact opposite of that claim as do many others. I'll interact more later.

Duncan said...

Unless a proven unbroken link for Irenaeus to the author of revelation can be established he is just another opinion unless he can give a viable explanation as to his position. If is reasoning as to why there should be four gospels is anything to go by ....

All he actually does is bear witness to the FACT that there was and is more than one option.

Just because something is traditionally done a certain way does no make it effective.

Edgar Foster said...

I read Daniel Wallace's piece and also watched the video where he presents evidence for 616--notice his cautionary words though, and how he does not dogmatically assert that 616 is original. He also interacts with Irenaeus without accepting his view.

Duncan said...

The sources you quoted are both pre-2005 ?


“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” - Irenaeus

Duncan said...

Probably because Daniel Wallace is given no evidence to accept the view of Irenaeus.

Edgar Foster said...

Check the critical apparatuses for critical GNTs and Irenaeus among others appears there. As I said, he doesn't seal the deal, but his testimony is external evidence and treated as such by textual-critical scholars including Wallace.

Metzger is dead, so unless someone updates his work, it remains as is. But Metzger is a standard work in the field; that is why I quoted him. The observations made by Barker are also made in post-2005 works. It is not as problem to produce those.

And I'm not saying we should just accept Irenaeus' word uncritically. That is not my point. But there's a certain way the game is played if one wants to play it.

Here's also a 2010 source for you: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13%3A18&version=SBLGNT

Edgar Foster said...

Remember this piece by Elliott? https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8DJ5SB5/download

Duncan said...

Another important witness to 616 is Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus,

https://youtu.be/OV2501BcFoI

Duncan said...

I have read that critical editions of the Greek text, such as the Novum Testamentum Graece, note 616 as a variant but I would need to check it for myself.

Duncan said...

https://www.academia.edu/38021442/_And_the_Number_of_His_Name_Is..._616_as_a_Donatist_Exegetical_Token

Edgar Foster said...

Critical editions of the GNT usually have many variants in the apparatus. I used to have NA27 and UBS4. Both have been superseded by NA28 and UB5, which I did not buy, but use online. But I did purchase the Cambridge Greek text. Need to check 13:18 in it.

There is evidence for 616, but I like 666 better.

Duncan said...

Its all down to what the purpose of the number actually was & whether it was clearly understood. One would then have to wonder why 616 persisted & why 665 and any other variant would occur (later Latin manuscripts have 617, 646, and 690 - IMO too fare removed from understanding the purpose. The three relevant ones are 666, 616 & 665. 665 as a scribal slip - maybe)

It may also leave one wondering why Jesus did not say 777 times at Mat. 18:22.

IMO it is because we are talking about TWO overlapping traditions. Similar but not the same - the Hebrew & Babylon.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lrdRYCRjUZUC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=isopsephia+mesopotamia&source=bl&ots=aqoa6v8lGJ&sig=ACfU3U2NTTqHzny-jdzOEtUXss4GLrofEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjf-I7Xg8rgAhWktXEKHUU7BJc4ChDoATAFegQIAxAB#v=onepage&q=isopsephia%20mesopotamia&f=false

This is an interesting chapter and I suppose, a warning about hanging any specific meaning on the number.

Duncan said...

Quite a unusual paper - but interesting.

https://research.ncl.ac.uk/forum/v5i1/gelder.pdf

"Procuring a building in ancient Mesopotamia appears to have been, in some respects at least, a very different process to that followed today. Looking for documents of the exact kind and purpose we use may prove to be a relatively futile pursuit. On the other hand, Mesopotamian practices were often adopted by other cultures, and some of these practices survive Building Project Documentation in Ancient Mesopotamia down to the present, notably the sexagesimal system."

Pg 5 talks about Isopsephia.

Edgar Foster said...

All interesting things to consider. Don't know if you've also read anything from Peter Malik, a post-doc researcher who is doing some fine work with P47, I believe. He also deals with Revelation 13:18.

Duncan said...

Thanks, will look at his work when time permits. Need to finish my little ;) project now.

Duncan said...

From Malik:-

" Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5,30,1 (SC 153, 370, 27–32 Rousseau). For a recent analysis of this passage in light of the ancient practice of using isopsephy, see Lincoln H. Blumell and Thomas A. Wayment, “The ‘Number of the Beast’: Revelation 13:18 and Early Christian Isopsephies,” in Book of Seven Seals: The Peculiarity of Revelation, its Manuscripts, Attestation, and Transmission (ed. Thomas J. Kraus and Michael Sommer; WUNT 363; Tübingen, 2016), 119–135. See also David E. Aune, Revelation (Word Biblical Commentary 52; Nashville: 1998), 770–773."

Edgar Foster said...

See also https://brill.com/view/title/34460

I have this book and may quote from it as time permits.

Hurtado discusses Malik here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/a-splendid-study-of-p47-papyrus-copy-of-revelation/