Revelation of John 20:5
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη.] (Byz) (ς) WH
omit] א 2030 2053 2062 2377 al syrph Victorinus-Pettau Beatus
οἱ] A 1611 itgig WH NR CEI Riv TILC NM
καὶ οἱ] 046 051 1006 1841 1854 2050 (2329) Byz itar vgmss syrh copbo
οἱ δὲ] pc ς ND Dio Nv
νεκρῶν] A Byz ς WH
ἀνθρώπων] pc
ἔζησαν ἄχρι] A Byz WH
ἀνέζησαν ἄχρι] pc
ἀνέζησαν ἕως] pc ς
See https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp|reference=Rev.20.5&options=GNHVU
6 comments:
I came across an interesting comment on this verse:-
"According to the NA-28 apparatus, the first half of the verse is missing in codex Sinaiticus, the byzantine manuscripts, and to a few much less significant manuscripts. Therefore the first half of the verse is present in all early papyri except one. Though codex Sinaiticus weighs heavily when it agrees with codex Vaticanus, that is not the case here. Besides, though Sinaiticus is considered an reliable text in the gospels and Acts, it is of notoriously poor quality in Revelation: several papyri and even some miniscules are considered better witnesses to Revelation. Thus, unless one considers the majority text a better witness than the early manuscripts (since even the Textus Receptus includes v5a), one is forced to conclude that the passage is most likely original. No internal evidence disagrees, as far as I know
But I don't think Rev 20:5a does any serious damage to any eschatology: what v5a says is already clear from the context, so I don't think anyone of any theology would benefit from removing it."
From what I can tell, B. Metzger doesn't even discuss 20:5a in his textual commentary. See also https://www.academia.edu/13710418/Codex_Sinaiticus_An_Early_Christian_Commentary_on_the_Apocalypse
For the record, here are David Aune's remarks on Rev. 20:5 text:
Variant: omit οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη] Oecumenius2053 2062 Andr i2042 2066 l1778 n2065 94 2030 2377 Byzantine syr Victorinus Beatus. Early accidental omission probably caused by homoioteleuton; i.e., ἔτη concludes both v 4 and this sentence.
Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1242). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Question some ask about Revelation 20:5.
Jehovah's Witnesses say the dead of the second resurrection are resurrected DURING Christ's millennial reign. Some feel The Bible says AFTER the millennial reign at Revelation 20:5 the resurrection happens.
Thoughts?
Thoughts ? https://www.quora.com/What-does-Revelation-20-5-mean-by-the-words-The-rest-of-the-dead-lived-not-again-until-the-thousand-years-were-finished/answer/Norma-Hines-1?ch=10&oid=197748534&share=8d381cf1&srid=3AV8E&target_type=answer
Revelation 20:5 does say the dead come to life after the 1000 years ended. However, in what sense are they dead and how do they come to life? Could the verse be talking about spiritually dead people who become perfected? How does a literal resurrection after the 1000 years coincide with the test of Revelation 20?
Post a Comment