rough breathing on αὐτοὺς Rev. 8:6 ?

[Stephen Carlson]

This source - as Maubrey (I recall) pointed out - doesn't include the Byzantine tradition, so at present doesn't give a very definitive overview of text forms.

Unlike the other books of the NT, there isn't a single, fairly uniform Byzantine tradition in Revelation. The textual history of this work is considerably more complicated than in the rest of the NT.

[Stephen Hughes]

This source - as Maubrey (I recall) pointed out - doesn't include the Byzantine tradition, so at present doesn't give a very definitive overview of text forms.

Unlike the other books of the NT, there isn't a single, fairly uniform Byzantine tradition in Revelation. The textual history of this work is considerably more complicated than in the rest of the NT.

I that lack of uniformity checkable in this instance? Robinson and Pierpont (2005) present it as a neat text.

[David Lim]

This source - as Maubrey (I recall) pointed out - doesn't include the Byzantine tradition, so at present doesn't give a very definitive overview of text forms.

Yes it doesn't, at least not yet.

Unlike the other books of the NT, there isn't a single, fairly uniform Byzantine tradition in Revelation. The textual history of this work is considerably more complicated than in the rest of the NT.

I that lack of uniformity checkable in this instance? Robinson and Pierpont (2005) present it as a neat text.

Is the text you have the same as at https://sites.google.com/a/wmail.fi/gre ... knt/rp2005?

[Stephen Carlson]

This source - as Maubrey (I recall) pointed out - doesn't include the Byzantine tradition, so at present doesn't give a very definitive overview of text forms.

Unlike the other books of the NT, there isn't a single, fairly uniform Byzantine tradition in Revelation. The textual history of this work is considerably more complicated than in the rest of the NT.

I that lack of uniformity checkable in this instance? Robinson and Pierpont (2005) present it as a neat text.

Not that neat--look at all the variant readings in the margins, which are of equal worth. For more details, you should consult their preface on p. xii in the section that begins with:

The establishment of the Byzantine text of the Apocalypse is a task far more complex than that which exists in the greater part of the New Testament. The dominant Apocalypse text appears in two related but distinct transmissional lines within the Byzantine tradition. These forms are generally known as Αν and Q, each supported by an approximately equal number of manuscripts. The Αν readings predominate in manuscripts that contain or derive from the fourth-century commentary of Andreas of Caesarea (Cappadocia). The Q readings predominate in manuscripts related to the uncial 046.

[Stephen Hughes]

Unlike the other books of the NT, there isn't a single, fairly uniform Byzantine tradition in Revelation. The textual history of this work is considerably more complicated than in the rest of the NT.

I{s} that lack of uniformity checkable in this instance? Robinson and Pierpont (2005) present it as a neat text.

Is the text you have the same as at [Byzantine Textform 2005]?

I'm sorry, David, I couldn't keep that url without changing your post a little in my "quote".

Stephen Carlson, that is a very intersting quote from RP's preface. I had taken those marginal readings as secondary because they are not used in the footnotes in juxaposition with the the modern edited text. So far as I've been led to believe, the Byzantine textual tradition has a degree of diversity in text-forms that co-existed throughout and across Byzantium.

[What I had it explained to me as at Theological College was that there were many copy-houses in Constantinople (now Istanbul) and they weren't all passively / slavishly copying texts but were at times actively editing / improving / correcting them. My knowledge of this is only second hand, it comes from it being briefly covered as a matter-of-fact in a Byzantine History course - not from my own looking into it.]

After Stephen Carlson's comment, I would be interested to see the truth or otherwise of what I heard about the fluidity of the manuscript tradition within Byzantine scholarship. It would be nice to see how this passage was presented in the Byzantine manuscript tradition, rather than having a reference to a single Byzantine .

[Stephen Carlson]

The Byzantine text is generally uniform throughout the NT with two major exceptions: Revelation and the Pericope Adultera. The major branches of the Byzantine text in Revelation are cited as M^A and M^K in NA26+ so you can look up which branch RP chose for the text and which one they chose for the margin.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

The Byzantine text is generally uniform throughout the NT with two major exceptions: Revelation and the Pericope Adultera. The major branches of the Byzantine text in Revelation are cited as M^A and M^K in NA26+ so you can look up which branch RP chose for the text and which one they chose for the margin.

Yes but it doesn't appear that the documents assigned to M^A and M^K all line up neatly in the variation units in Revelation. Does anyone have master list of the members of M^A and M^K? I am having a
"discussion" of sorts over this with the folks I am working with on Revelation and Acts. It appears that listing a long line of minuscules is odious simply because it takes up too much space. They want a comprehensive list of early citations from christian literature which will be reduced to Qxxx numbers that nobody else uses. This is also a minor point of contention. The names of the fathers are familiar to a lot of people, however these numbers will be like Hoskier's numbers for the Apocalypse, totally foreign to everyone. Anyway, all of this is not b-greek so I will desist.

[Stephen Carlson]

Does anyone have master list of the members of M^A and M^K?

Revelation is not my bailiwick but I think that the standard work is still Josef Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des Griechischen Apokalypse-Textes (1956).

[spuluka]

I concur that Schmid is a good resource on the text of Revelation. I also found that Hoskier was a great resource when working with this text.

Hoskier, Herman Charles. 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; a complete conspectus of all authorities Vol. 1. 2 vols., 1929.

Regarding the Byzantine text tradition, at least some of the variation here can be attributed to the fact that Revelation does not appear at all in the lectionary tradition of the Church. We find much greater consistency in the texts that are regularly used in the liturgical services.