I remember an older sister would listen to other jws get caught up in a long discussion that seemed to have no goal in sight, she would say, "Well, Armageddon will still come on time." Some may not see any connection.
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Earnest
While it has been interesting to read the many varied and learned explanations why Revelation 3:14 does not mean that Jesus is God's first creation, I was struck by the comment that "while dictionaries are valuable tools for understanding words, they often summarize meanings and do not capture the full spectrum of use in different contexts". I think that is true, and wonder how the scribe who wrote Revelation 3:14 (or his exemplar) understood the Greek of his time which he had imbibed from his mother's milk.
Codex Sinaiticus was copied by three scribes who are commonly identified as A, B and D, and Revelation was copied by scribes A and D. Scribe D was responsible for the title and most of the first column (the first five verses), while scribe A copied the rest of the book.
What do we know about scribe A? He had a theological bias and was not particularly careful about his copying.
Apart from Revelation 3:14, there is a variant at Revelation 3:16, where instead of vomiting the Laodiceans out of his mouth (σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου - referring to a human action by Jesus), he "stops their mouths" (παυϲε του ϲτοματοϲ ϲου).
At Revelation 5:13, where most manuscripts have the doxology to God and the Lamb of "the blessing and the honour and the glory and the might forever and ever”, scribe A replaces "and the might" (καὶ τὸ κράτος) with "of the Almighty" (παντοκρατοροϲ) so that the doxology reads that both God and the Lamb receive "the blessing and the honour and the glory of the Almighty”.
His treatment of sacred names is also of interest. These are names like God, Jesus, Lord which are abbreviated to indicate special attention should be given to them. He always contracts God (94x), Lord (25x), Spirit (22x), Jesus (9x), Christ (3x), David (3x) and Jerusalem (2x). In the case of Man (18/25) and Heaven (40/50), most are contracted, while Son is contracted 2/5.
In fact, codex Sinaiticus is unique in the number of corrections made to it. On the just over 800 preserved pages there are more than 23,000 places where the text has been altered. Most of these corrections are orthographical, in other words they involve spellings or graphical improvements. Even so, it does seem to show a certain freedom of speech displayed (primarily) by scribe A.
So the central question which no-one seems to want to answer is, if scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) did not understand Revelation 3:14 meant Jesus was God's first creation, why did he alter it?
-
KalebOutWest
Earnest:
So the central question which no-one seems to want to answer is, if scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) did not understand Revelation 3:14 meant Jesus was God's first creation, why did he alter it?
If you are referring to the Codex Sinaiticus, this is an answer. The Codex Sinaiticus, and the book of Revelation found therein, is not the same text as what came to be accepted by Christianity and the Church almost a generation later.
The entire Codex not only contains a different reading at Revelation 3:14 but in many other areas throughout, not only Revelation but in every one of its books.
Not only that, it has other books in its collection not found in the New Testament canon--because there was no official canon yet. When the Codex was assembled, the Marcionist threat was a problem for Christianity (the teaching of salvation limited to the means by learning from a canon assembled by Marcion of Sinope, a heretical bishop that claimed he was "a follower of Paul," the apostle).
The Codex contains in its canon not merely variations, but two of the most popular books of Christianity: The Epistle of Barnabas and part of The Shepherd of Hermas.
This Codex was created before the canonization of the New Testament. It is generally understood to be from the family of works commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine after his conversion to Christianity in 312 CE.
The New Testament canon's list of 27 books was finalized in 367 CE by Eusebius and given the stamp of approval by the Easter letter of Bishop Athansius of that same year. It was affirmed as "canon" in the year 382, making it the "New Testament" at the Canon of Trent at affirmed in the Syndod of Hippo. This codex, however, predates the Eusebius canon by 45 to 50 years if not more.
It is also not the standard reading that was being circulated at that time, nor was Revelation a popular book. By the time the Codex found its way to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, because of the fact that the readings were considered non-canonical and the fact that the collection contained non-canonical books not accepted by Christianity, someone that did not realize what the collection could mean to history tossed it aside to be burned with the rubbish.
Early writings do not mean "canonical," at least in Christianity. It might confuse some, and they do offer considerable insight, don't give me wrong. But to a Christian world where religious teaching did not stem from religious texts, and since at the time the Marcionist threat was all about "basing doctrine on Scripture," one has to develop a completely different viewpoint here.
The Codex Sinaiticus is different everywhere, not just in one spot. If a difference is what you are going to call out Christianity on the simple basis of one reading from this Codex, then it all falls because Christianity existed before this Codex.
-
slimboyfat
Just on point of fact, contrary to aqwsed12345 above, the latest edition of the BDAG Lexicon says that “first created” is the probable meaning of “beginning” in Rev 3.14. The full entry for the Greek word in that Lexicon can be read on the following blog, the relevant comment coming under the paragraph numbered 3.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/03/revelation-314-and-bdag-edited-for.html
(Oops, I see Blotty has already quoted this entry. Sorry for overlooking that. However, it makes aqwsed12345’s subsequent inaccurate statement all the more curious.)
Another thing that should be taken into consideration when looking at texts such as Rev 3.14; Col 1.15, John 1:1 and so on is that these passages are clearly drawing on the Jewish Wisdom tradition. In that tradition Wisdom was spoken about as God’s first creation, an archangel, or principal angel beside God. Therefore it’s entirely within the cultural context of the period to understand these passages in the NT along those lines. It’s those who wish to read those passages within a fourth century Trinitarian context that are interpreting them outside of their historical setting.
Elsewhere, of course, the NT also makes a careful distinction between God as the source of creation and Jesus as the one through whom God created. Interpreting this verse to say that Jesus is the source of creation would seem to contradict those other passages. (John 1.3; 1 Cor 8.6; Col 1.16; Heb 1.2)
-
Earnest
KalebOutWest : If you are referring to the Codex Sinaiticus, this is an answer.
Thank you for your comments. However, while you say a lot about codex Sinaiticus you do not answer the question as to why scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) altered Revelation 3:14 if he did not understand it to mean that Jesus was God's first creation.
KalebOutWest : It is also not the standard reading that was being circulated at that time,
It was clearly the standard reading at the time and place that the copying took place. But whether or not it was the standard reading, the question remains as to why a scribe altered the text if he did not understand it to mean that Jesus was God's first creation.
KalebOutWest : By the time the Codex found its way to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, because of the fact that the readings were considered non-canonical and the fact that the collection contained non-canonical books not accepted by Christianity, someone that did not realize what the collection could mean to history tossed it aside to be burned with the rubbish.
The account of part of the manuscript being burned as rubbish comes from Constantin Tischendorf when he discovered the manuscript at the monastery in the nineteenth century. What amazing timing, that after caring for the manuscript for 1400 years Tischendorf should just happen to be there when they were going to burn it. That account is denied by the monastery and not taken seriously by scholars. It just made Tischendorf look like a hero and justified his theft of the manuscripts. Your suggestion that it was related to non-canonical books is without foundation and, frankly, absurd.
-
slimboyfat
Good points, Earnest, I agree with you on the unlikelihood of Tischendorf’s account.
If I remember correctly, codex Sinaiticus places the non-canonical books after Revelation.
It’s a bit odd that KalebOutWest says:
“When the Codex was assembled, the Marcionist threat was a problem for Christianity“.
Marcion and Marcionism was a 2nd century phenomenon. Codex Sinaiticus is dated to the 4th century. I don’t think the historical knowledge of our interlocutor matches his rhetorical bluster.
-
KalebOutWest
@ Earnest:
I'm sorry I posted a reply to you.
I forgot to use crayon and lots of pictures of people kissing your butt.
But even if I did that, knowing a POMI like you, you would have found a reason to argue back claiming how I was wrong and didn't answer right:
"Use more brown crayon on the nose. I like more brown on the nose," is what I was expecting...
Balaam's ass was smarter.
-
slimboyfat
Wow Kaleb Out Of Kindergarten might be more apt name 😳
-
KalebOutWest
Slimboyfat:
MARCIONISTS.
Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire.--The Catholic Encyclopedia.This is what I was talking about.
You all are uneducated.
"Marcionism was a 2nd century phenomenon"--Slimboyfat
-
Earnest
slimboyfat : If I remember correctly, codex Sinaiticus places the non-canonical books after Revelation.
Correct. Both the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are at the end of codex Sinaiticus, after Revelation. David Trobisch notes that after Revelation one and a half sheets of the quire were empty and so suggests they constitute appendices, especially so as the other three "Bible" manuscripts (codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi rescriptus) do not contain them.
I do, however, agree with KalebOutWest that it was still a bit early to describe texts as canonical or otherwise. In fact, codex Sinaiticus is the oldest manuscript containing the entire New Testament so ipso facto it became canonical.