According to Dan 12:4, Daniel was told to seal up the words of his prophecy until the time of the end. But in contrast, John in Rev 22:10 is told, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." Now, there is one section of John's Apocalypse that is an exception to this general interpretive rule, namely, chapter 20, which does relate to the time of the very end (when Satan is let out of his prison at the end of the millenium—which I take to be symbolic for this present age).
This "οι λοιποι των νεκρων ουκ εζησαν αρχι χιλια ετη τελεσθαι" (ΑΠΟΚ 20:5add) does not belong there (a glossa inserted later?) and does not appear in the better manuscripts?
Here's Philip Comfort's take on Rev 20:5. "The omission may have been accidental, due to homoeoteleuton. The previous verse ends with the same last two words: χιλια ετη (“thousand years”). But it is also possible that the omission was intentional because it seems to interrupt a connection between 20:4 and 20:5b (assuming that αυτη η αναστασις η πρωτη [“this is the first resurrection”] is supposed to refer to 20:4b and not 20:5a). Other scribes may have expunged the sentence for doctrinal reasons. Elimination of the sentence, “the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years finished,” eradicates the problem of having to explain how certain Christians (i.e., the martyrs of 20:4) are allowed to participate in the first resurrection and the millennial kingdom, while others (i.e., those who are not martyrs) have to wait until after the millennium to experience resurrection." I think Comfort makes a good case for both sides of the argument. It could be a gloss, but also, might not be.
The churches seem to love this ( obvious addition. It supports their dualistic reading of all these texts.
I wrote the guys who edit the Novum Testamentum Graece why they leave it in the main text. Their justification was about as lame as the one you quoted above. It contradicts His words. It makes no sense contextually. Except you (as most do) falsely read some weird chronology into the last chapters of this book. (Like the wedding of ch. 21 happening after the thousand years of ch. 20.)
I can't find a Greek edition that omits the phrase (USB5, NA28, Tyndale GNT, TR, Tishendorf, Westcott & Hort, Egyptian Greek, etc.) Why do you think they all decided to include this passage that in your words "makes no sense" and "contradicts" John's words? I'm willing to accept the possibility that Hans alone is right, but I need something more to go on apart from the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Jesus' statement in Mk 9:49 that "everyone will be salted with fire" still doesn't make sense to me, but I shouldn't on that basis argue that it is not authentic.
1. the Nestle-Aland editions list the following manuscripts as missing the beginning of Revelation 20:5 ("But the rest of the dead did not come to life again until the thousand years were completed"):
- Codex Alexandrinus (A) - an important uncial manuscript from the 5th century
- Some minuscule manuscripts, especially 2053 and 2062
2 Tischendorf's edition (8th edition, 1869-1872) also mentions the absence in A and some minuscules.
3 Westcott and Hort (1881) identify this part of the verse as possibly not original, based on its absence in some manuscripts.
I'm trying to remember if we have any prophecies left to look forward to? ;^)
According to Dan 12:4, Daniel was told to seal up the words of his prophecy until the time of the end. But in contrast, John in Rev 22:10 is told, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." Now, there is one section of John's Apocalypse that is an exception to this general interpretive rule, namely, chapter 20, which does relate to the time of the very end (when Satan is let out of his prison at the end of the millenium—which I take to be symbolic for this present age).
Did you notice:
This "οι λοιποι των νεκρων ουκ εζησαν αρχι χιλια ετη τελεσθαι" (ΑΠΟΚ 20:5add) does not belong there (a glossa inserted later?) and does not appear in the better manuscripts?
Here's Philip Comfort's take on Rev 20:5. "The omission may have been accidental, due to homoeoteleuton. The previous verse ends with the same last two words: χιλια ετη (“thousand years”). But it is also possible that the omission was intentional because it seems to interrupt a connection between 20:4 and 20:5b (assuming that αυτη η αναστασις η πρωτη [“this is the first resurrection”] is supposed to refer to 20:4b and not 20:5a). Other scribes may have expunged the sentence for doctrinal reasons. Elimination of the sentence, “the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years finished,” eradicates the problem of having to explain how certain Christians (i.e., the martyrs of 20:4) are allowed to participate in the first resurrection and the millennial kingdom, while others (i.e., those who are not martyrs) have to wait until after the millennium to experience resurrection." I think Comfort makes a good case for both sides of the argument. It could be a gloss, but also, might not be.
The churches seem to love this ( obvious addition. It supports their dualistic reading of all these texts.
I wrote the guys who edit the Novum Testamentum Graece why they leave it in the main text. Their justification was about as lame as the one you quoted above. It contradicts His words. It makes no sense contextually. Except you (as most do) falsely read some weird chronology into the last chapters of this book. (Like the wedding of ch. 21 happening after the thousand years of ch. 20.)
Read it carefully, not just glossing over it.
I can't find a Greek edition that omits the phrase (USB5, NA28, Tyndale GNT, TR, Tishendorf, Westcott & Hort, Egyptian Greek, etc.) Why do you think they all decided to include this passage that in your words "makes no sense" and "contradicts" John's words? I'm willing to accept the possibility that Hans alone is right, but I need something more to go on apart from the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. Jesus' statement in Mk 9:49 that "everyone will be salted with fire" still doesn't make sense to me, but I shouldn't on that basis argue that it is not authentic.
Another witness is Victorinus of Pettau:
Victorinus lived in the late 3rd century and wrote the first known Latin commentary on Revelation.
- His commentary is one of the earliest witnesses to the interpretation of Revelation.
- With regard to Revelation 20:5, there are indications that his original text may not have included the first part of the verse.
Thank you for your kind reply. Much appreciated.
1. the Nestle-Aland editions list the following manuscripts as missing the beginning of Revelation 20:5 ("But the rest of the dead did not come to life again until the thousand years were completed"):
- Codex Alexandrinus (A) - an important uncial manuscript from the 5th century
- Some minuscule manuscripts, especially 2053 and 2062
2 Tischendorf's edition (8th edition, 1869-1872) also mentions the absence in A and some minuscules.
3 Westcott and Hort (1881) identify this part of the verse as possibly not original, based on its absence in some manuscripts.