we do not have a copy of the apocalypse that is older than the 5th century
so
we do not know what was in it
all we have are people writing about it
antipas
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
we do not have a copy of the apocalypse that is older than the 5th century
so
we do not know what was in it
all we have are people writing about it
O
Origen
Guest
Thank you but that is not correct. There is codex Sinaiticus which is dated to around 350. And there are the papyri (i.e. P18, P24, P98, P115) all of which date before the 5th century. The papyri are not complete copies (however codex Sinaiticus is) of the Apocalypse however we to know what was in those sections that we do have.
so we do not have a complete copy of the apocalyse prior to the 5th century
and
we do not have complete agreement as to whether or not it should be in there
O
Origen
Guest
Codex Sinaiticus has the complete text and it dates to around 350. If you want to look at it here is the link.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/
The authors of Codex Sinaiticus thought it should be there. Making a codex was very expensive and it does not seem prudent if Revelation was not generally accepted.
As for finding "complete agreement," I not sure that is even possible.
Last edited:
sorry about this bump
and
this dump
but
they are deleting my posts
and
I don't want to lose these
and
this dump
but
they are deleting my posts
and
I don't want to lose these
Anto9us
New member
I don't want them lost either - Chrysostom - this is good stuff
two full pages on Antipas -- and yet no mention of him regarding the "Preterism/Futurism" conflict
you see
Antipas (name means literally AGAINST ALL" in Greek
was Bishop of Pergamum
but the DATES of his bishopric and death are DISPUTED -- even by Eastern Orthodox sources who seem to be the ONLY sources to have any real dates about Antipas
normally, most sources put Antipas' death about 92 AD - meaning that jives with a normal 95 AD writing of Revelation. But the only real sources for these things are in what I have come to call an "Eastern Orthodox Fox's Book of Martyrs" and it had few references.
Once at another board, there was a specifc sub-forum for Eastern Orthodox -- and I went in pleading for any and all good refernces for ANTIPAS - Bishop of Pergamum
I was given refernces that had ambiguous dates - some had his bishopric in Domitian's reign -- jiving with most schaolar's dates on Revelation
HOWEVER - IT WAS SAID THAT ANTIPAS' BISHOPRIC WAS DISPUTED -- AND COULD HAVE BEEN IN NERO'S REIGN -- meaning of course that Antipas could have died before a few years before 70 AD and falling in line with the Preterist EARLY DATING of the book of Revelation
so I thought I had really stumbled into a tie-breaker -- a deal-clencher -- in this Eastern Orthodox sub-forum -- something that would settle the deal on whether Revelation was written in Nero's time or Domitian's time
and here it was -- a "no call"
I threw up my hands and forgot about it
two full pages on Antipas -- and yet no mention of him regarding the "Preterism/Futurism" conflict
you see
Antipas (name means literally AGAINST ALL" in Greek
was Bishop of Pergamum
but the DATES of his bishopric and death are DISPUTED -- even by Eastern Orthodox sources who seem to be the ONLY sources to have any real dates about Antipas
normally, most sources put Antipas' death about 92 AD - meaning that jives with a normal 95 AD writing of Revelation. But the only real sources for these things are in what I have come to call an "Eastern Orthodox Fox's Book of Martyrs" and it had few references.
Once at another board, there was a specifc sub-forum for Eastern Orthodox -- and I went in pleading for any and all good refernces for ANTIPAS - Bishop of Pergamum
I was given refernces that had ambiguous dates - some had his bishopric in Domitian's reign -- jiving with most schaolar's dates on Revelation
HOWEVER - IT WAS SAID THAT ANTIPAS' BISHOPRIC WAS DISPUTED -- AND COULD HAVE BEEN IN NERO'S REIGN -- meaning of course that Antipas could have died before a few years before 70 AD and falling in line with the Preterist EARLY DATING of the book of Revelation
so I thought I had really stumbled into a tie-breaker -- a deal-clencher -- in this Eastern Orthodox sub-forum -- something that would settle the deal on whether Revelation was written in Nero's time or Domitian's time
and here it was -- a "no call"
I threw up my hands and forgot about it
there is a good explanation for this
there were at least two versions of the apocalypse
one without antipas
and
another with him
eusebius and victorinus did not know about antipas
so
they didn't get the second version
eusebius and victorinus did not know about antipas
eusebius mentions many martyrs in his church history
but not antipas
his copy of the apocalypse didn't have antipas
but not antipas
his copy of the apocalypse didn't have antipas
everready
New member
good point
but
can you explain why
eusebius and victorinus did not know about antipas
when
both knew and commented on the apocalypse?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
I'm afraid I don't know the literature very well at all, but in a commentary on Revelation, Daniel Denison Whedon says this upon that verse :
{From Commentary on the New Testament, Volume 5 by Whedon, Daniel Denison, New York : Eaton and Mains (1880); p348}
Not sure what work that would be from, though...
nikolai_42
Well-known member
No I can't. All I'm saying is that a commentary has an uncited reference to Eusebius. But I do understand that there are other works of Eusebius that are not either commonly read (or possibly translated). I think the same commentator (can't recall if it was him or not) made reference to Eusebius' Commentary on the Psalms. He cited Stuart as his source there. So I really can't tell what he is quoting. I even tried looking for Antipater...
Perhaps you already have the answers in the yellow highlighted portions quoted above from other posters? Perhaps it is not what is written that changed but rather the reading. Before the "Antipas of Pergamum" event, (whether it is a true story or not) the reading was probably anti-pas, that is, "against all", (i.e. "the days against all"). However, after the "Antipas of Pergamum" event the reading suddenly changes to a personal name, "Antipas", because several hundred years later those who read the passage were not familiar enough with when exactly it was actually written, (by Yochanan the Immerser in the Macherus-Patmos fortress prison of Herod). Whether it was written originally in Hebrew-Aramaic, or whether originally in Greek, there is no doubt that the first Greek manuscript or copy would have been written in Uncial script which is all capitals without spaces. Thus the reading may be either anti-pas or Antipas with no change at all in the text. If Eusebius and Victorinus do not mention Antipas it does not necessarily mean it was not in the text in their day but more likely it means that they read it as "against all" rather than the personal name Antipas. Remember also that the one like unto (a/the) Son of man, whom Yochanan sees in the first chapter, was slain from the foundation of the world, (Revelation 13:8).
Perhaps you already have the answers in the yellow highlighted portions quoted above from other posters? Perhaps it is not what is written that changed but rather the reading. Before the "Antipas of Pergamum" event, (whether it is a true story or not) the reading was probably anti-pas, that is, "against all", (i.e. "the days against all"). However, after the "Antipas of Pergamum" event the reading suddenly changes to a personal name, "Antipas", because several hundred years later those who read the passage were not familiar enough with when exactly it was actually written, (by Yochanan the Immerser in the Macherus-Patmos fortress prison of Herod). Whether it was written originally in Hebrew-Aramaic, or whether originally in Greek, there is no doubt that the first Greek manuscript or copy would have been written in Uncial script which is all capitals without spaces. Thus the reading may be either anti-pas or Antipas with no change at all in the text. If Eusebius and Victorinus do not mention Antipas it does not necessarily mean it was not in the text in their day but more likely it means that they read it as "against all" rather than the personal name Antipas. Remember also that the one like unto (a/the) Son of man, whom Yochanan sees in the first chapter, was slain from the foundation of the world, (Revelation 13:8).
tertullian of the second century knows the names of the seven churches and antipas
so
it was not a question of text
it was not in their copy at all
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Anti- doesn't mean "against" in the sense of making war. It means it in the sense of "in place of."Perhaps you already have the answers in the yellow highlighted portions quoted above from other posters? Perhaps it is not what is written that changed but rather the reading. Before the "Antipas of Pergamum" event, (whether it is a true story or not) the reading was probably anti-pas, that is, "against all", (i.e. "the days against all"). However, after the "Antipas of Pergamum" event the reading suddenly changes to a personal name, "Antipas", because several hundred years later those who read the passage were not familiar enough with when exactly it was actually written, (by Yochanan the Immerser in the Macherus-Patmos fortress prison of Herod). Whether it was written originally in Hebrew-Aramaic, or whether originally in Greek, there is no doubt that the first Greek manuscript or copy would have been written in Uncial script which is all capitals without spaces. Thus the reading may be either anti-pas or Antipas with no change at all in the text. If Eusebius and Victorinus do not mention Antipas it does not necessarily mean it was not in the text in their day but more likely it means that they read it as "against all" rather than the personal name Antipas. Remember also that the one like unto (a/the) Son of man, whom Yochanan sees in the first chapter, was slain from the foundation of the world, (Revelation 13:8).
Remember: Apposition; not Opposition.
Jarrod
Wick Stick
Well-known member
A later writer adds a gloss about an eminent personage of that particular church? Seems plausible enough.
Why is it important?
Jarrod
it isn't important
it is just one piece of the puzzle that suggests there was more than one version of the apocalypse in the second century
I don't expect a lot of interest in this
but
I have spent a lot of time on this
and
do believe eusebius and victorinus were not aware of antipas
just as they were not aware of the seven churches