Revelation 22:19 -- βιβλου vs. ξυλου

I lost my sourse for this. I'd take a year to find it!

"19.a. The prep phrase ajpo; tw`n lovgwn tou` biblivou th`" profhteiva" tauvth", lit. ―from the prophetic words of this book,‖ is a partitive gen. (intensified by the prep ajpov, ―from‖), which functions as the obj. of the verb ajfevlh/, ―remove, expunge‖; see BDR § 164.

"An indefinite pl. obj., such as tinav, ―anything,‖ is presupposed.

"The author often uses the partitive gen. (most frequently with ejk or ajpov) as the subject or obj. of various verbs; see Rev 2:7, 10, 17; 5:9; 11:9; 21:6; see Introduction, Section 7: Syntax, under ―partitive genitive,‖ pp. clxxi–clxxiii.


These are some good references from: Revelation 22:19 - Textus Receptus

• 2.6 Book of Life
  • 2.6.1 Irenaeus
  • 2.6.2 Old Latin
  • 2.6.3 Bohairic Coptic
  • 2.6.4 Latin Vulgate
  • 2.6.5 Ambrose
  • 2.6.6 Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia
  • 2.6.7 Primasius of Hadrumetum
  • 2.6.8 Bohairic Coptic
  • 2.6.9 Haimo Halberstadensis
  • 2.6.10 Erasmus
  • 2.6.11 John Gill
  • 2.6.12 Latter Marginal Note Added to KJV
  • 2.6.13 Albert Barnes
  • 2.6.14 Adam Clarke
  • 2.6.15 Scrivener
  • 2.6.16 Herman C. Hoskier
  • 2.6.17 Bruce Metzger
  • 2.6.18 Edward Hills
  • 2.6.19 Jack Moorman
  • 2.6.20 Thomas Holland
  • 2.6.21 Gail Riplinger
  • 2.6.22 Steven Avery
  • 2.6.23 NET Bible Notes
  • 2.6.24 Jan Krans
  • 2.6.25 Doug Kutilek
  • 2.6.26 Dean Burgon Society
  • 2.6.27 T. L. Hubeart
  • 2.6.28 Joi Christians

This is also the main banner critics fly under:

"Critics of the Authorised Version and its underlying Greek text have quite often drawn attention to the comparatively small number of manuscripts available to Erasmus and the Complutensian editors, and to Stephens and Beza, and the impression is given that the discovery of many thousands of documents in more recent times makes it imperative to introduce a large number of changes in the Greek text. While it is true that many manuscripts have come to light, it must not be overlooked that the great majority of all these newly discovered copies confirm the reliability of the Greek text underlying the Authorised Version and are of a character very similar to the small number of copies upon which earlier editors had to rely.

"Erasmus has sometimes been criticised for his treatment of the last six verses of Revelation. The state of the copies in his hands made it impossible for him to edit this part of the text directly from the Greek, and he completed this portion by translating the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. While it may be admitted that he had no alternative if his Greek edition was to be complete, the indirect method of arriving at the Greek text of these verses may cause some to wonder whether the resultant text can be relied on.

"Although the Latin Vulgate is by no means free from error, there are many portions of it which agree very closely with the Greek text found in the majority of the manuscripts now available to modern scholars. In this respect Erasmus was referring to an authority more ancient than the incomplete Greek copy upon which he relied for most of Revelation. A detailed study of the reconstructed Greek of Erasmus, side by side with the Latin and the most recent editions of the Greek text, shows a very remarkable agreement, and in the case of the few significant variations in the recent critical editions, it is not to be assumed that they are unquestionably right and that Erasmus was unquestionably wrong."

I don't believe 2814 had the verse in it, did it?

2049 does.

And this says, "the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067"

from: Revelation 22:19 -"book of life" and the last six verses of Revelation 22

"Did Erasmus really translate the Latin back into Greek?

Textual scholar Herman C. Hoskier argued that Erasmus did not do this. Instead, he suggests that Erasmus used other Greek manuscripts such as 2049 (which Hoskier calls 141), and the evidence seems to support this position. [3] Manuscript 2049 contains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual variant of Revelation 22:19.

"To this we can also add the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067"

"Likewise, there is textual evidence for the reading book of life instead of tree of life. As noted above, the reading is found in a few Greek manuscripts.

"It is the main reading among the Latin witnesses.

"The phrase book of life is also the reading of the Old Bohairic version.

"Finally, it is the reading found in the writings of Ambrose (397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), Primasius (552 AD) and Haymo (ninth century).

"One must also consider the internal evidence. The phrase tree of life appears seven times in the Old Testament and three times in the New Testament.

"In these verses we are told we will be able to eat of this tree, and that this tree of Eden will reappear in Eternity.

"The idea that one can have their share taken away from the tree of life seems abnormal to Scripture.

"However, the phrase book of life appears seven other times in the New Testament (Phil.4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; and 21:27).

"In each case we find the book of life either contains or does not contain names, or names are blotted out of it.

,"Therefore, the phrase, "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life," is extremely consistent with the biblical texts.

Also see: Erasmus and the Text of Revelation 22:19 - TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism http://jbtc.org/v16/Krans2011.pdf

 

Concerning manuscript 1’ [min. 2814], Robert Waltz wrote: “Noteworthy primarily as the single Greek manuscript used by Erasmus to prepare the Apocalypse of his 1516 New Testament” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 1037). Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412). John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). Jan Krans maintained that this manuscript had some other omissions in its text, noting: “Some striking examples, by no means exhaustive, of omissions in min. 2814 that are restored by Erasmus” on the basis of the Latin Vulgate include phrases or clauses at Revelation 2:2, 2:17, 2:20, 3:12, 6:11, 22:11 (Beyond What is Written, p. 54, footnote 7). This manuscript includes the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia. The Greek text of this manuscript is sometimes described as the “Andreas text” because the manuscripts with Andreas’s commentary have some readings said to characterize or distinguish them from typical Byzantine Greek manuscripts. In a new translation and his commentary on the book of Revelation, Craig Koester distinguished between the text used in the commentary by Andreas and the Byzantine text (p. 149). Josef Schmid classified the Andreas text as one of the four main text types or families of text for the Apocalypse. Edward Hutton identified or associated “the Andreas text with the great Western family” (Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 47).

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text. Henry Alford observed: “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8). In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted: “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135). James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91). Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions of the TR, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82). In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation asserted “the sacred text is here mixed up with the commentary of Andreas,” and he noted: “Owing to this cause, Erasmus omitted, from his first three editions, chapter 21:26” (Vol. IV, p. 462). At Revelation 21:24, William Lee claimed that “the copyist has imported into the text the words of the commentary, viz. ’of them which are saved’” (Ibid.). Thomas Conant maintained that the words “of them which are saved” (Rev. 21:24) “rests solely on a mistake by the transcriber, who confounded the commentary of Andreas with the words of the sacred writer” (Baptist Quarterly, Vol. IV, April, 1870, p. 136). Thomas Conant suggested that “the transcriber accidentally misplaced the signs for the commencement of the text and of the commentary (as other copies of the commentary show), and thus included in the text the words, ‘of them that are saved,‘ which belong to the commentary on the preceding verse” (pp. 135-136). In the book of Revelation, Robert Waltz asserted that the Textus Receptus has “a handful” of readings “derived from the [Andreas] commentary itself” (Encyclopedia, p. 438). In his commentary on the book of Numbers, Rod Mattoon asserted: “Some of the commentary [by Andreas] found its way into Erasmus’ text and into the KJV” (Treasures from Numbers, p. 525). John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. John Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74). Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Jan Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16). Samuel Tregelles asserted: “Erasmus has often been blamed for using the Aldine reprint of his own first edition as if it were a distinct authority. But it appears from Erasmus’s own words, that he was not aware that such was the case” (Account of the Printed Text, p. 27).

If Erasmus supposedly had a second Greek NT manuscript with the book of Revelation, how is it explained that Revelation 21:26 was omitted in his text, and how are some of the other different readings his text of Revelation explained?

 

Thus, we have two items to choose from, in the drop-down menu.

Surprise!!!

Wasn't a leaf torn out of 2814, where the last six verses are missing?

from: Revelation 22:19 -"book of life" and the last six verses of Revelation 22

"While the focus of this verse deals with the phrase "book of life" as opposed to "tree of life." the issue is deeper. The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus to produce his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two.

"It is thought that Erasmus took the Latin Vulgate and retranslated these verses back into Greek. [1]

"Assuming this hypothesis is true we must ask ourselves the following questions.

"First, if Erasmus did in fact make use of the Latin Vulgate to supply these last six verses, has the usage of the Latin corrupted the text?

"Second, was Codex 1r really the only Greek manuscript used by Erasmus for this passage?

"If Erasmus did translate back into Greek from the Latin text, he did an astounding job. These six verses consist of one hundred thirty-six Greek words in the Textus Receptus, and one hundred thirty-two Greek words in the Critical Text. There are only eighteen textual variants found within these verses when the two texts are compared. [2] ..."

"However, this brings us to our second question. Did Erasmus really translate the Latin back into Greek? Textual scholar Herman C. Hoskier argued that Erasmus did not do this. Instead, he suggests that Erasmus used other Greek manuscripts such as 2049 (which Hoskier calls 141), and the evidence seems to support this position. [3] Manuscript 2049 contains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual variant of Revelation 22:19. To this we can also add the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067."

"Likewise, there is textual evidence for the reading book of life instead of tree of life. As noted above, the reading is found in a few Greek manuscripts. It is the main reading among the Latin witnesses. The phrase book of life is also the reading of the Old Bohairic version. Finally, it is the reading found in the writings of Ambrose (397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), Primasius (552 AD) and Haymo (ninth century)"

 

From: “Book of life” or “Tree of life” in Revelation 22:19? - KJV Today

“Book of life” is found in the Vulgate as early as in Codex Fuldensis of the 6th century. The value of Vulgate readings cannot be dismissed. The Vulgate preserves several passages that are found in the Sinaiticus but were later lost in the majority of Byzantine copies: e.g. “raise the dead” (Matthew 10:8), “the Jews” (John 3:25), “Church of God” (Acts 20:28), Doxology (Romans 16:25-27)."

"The reading “book of life” appears to have been common in the Latin stream from early times. The text of Ambrose (4th century) in De Paradiso, Book One, c. 12 reads as the Textus Receptus: in libro.

"The text of Primasius of Hadrumetum (6th century) also has “book of life”. Commentariorum super Apocalypsim, which drew from the Revelation commentary by Tyconius (4th century), reads: in libro.

"The text of Haymo of Halberstadt (9th century) also has “book of life”. de libro.

"The Reading “Book of Life” is More Logical and Consistent
The Textus Receptus reading is arguably more logical than the other reading. The Textus Receptus reading essentially says that if you take words out of God’s book of his prophecy, then God will take you out of his book of life.

"The passage makes a connection between two “books”. The parallelism is weaker when we instead deal with a “tree” and a book.

"The reason an early Greek scribe may have changed “book” to “tree” may be because the “tree of life” is referred to just a few verses back in verse 14. Verse 14 mentions the “tree of life” and immediately mentions the “city”. Verse 19 would appear to be more consistent with verse 14 if it too mentioned “tree of life” and immediately mentioned the “holy city”.

"However, in the previous chapter at Revelation 21:27 a connection is already made between being written in the book of life and having access to the holy city. Revelation 21:27 says, “And there shall in no wise enter into [that great city (see v. 10)] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life. ” (Revelation 21:27).

Thus Revelation 21:27 establishes the connection between the book of life and the holy city, and Revelation 22:19 once again makes this connection by saying,

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

"Latin commentaries on Revelation by Victorinus and Tyconius existed by the fourth century, but the earliest known Greek commentary on Revelation is by Andreas of Caesarea in the seventh century. Thus the reading “book of life” is the reading of Christians who considered Revelation to be inspired from early times."

 

Why the "if" unless it is being suggested that Erasmus was dishonest in what he himself said?

John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312).

What other single Greek NT manuscript matches with the text in the Greek edition edited by Erasmus?

Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Jan Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16).

In addition, if Erasmus supposedly had a second Greek NT manuscript with the book of Revelation, how is it explained that Revelation 21:26 was omitted in his text, and how are some of the other different readings his text of Revelation explained?