Revelation 22:6 γεγονα Nestle Symbols

[Enoch]

Can someone tell me what the minus signs mean in the Nestle symbology?

–ℵ2 and -1 MK .

⸂ ✝ 1 2 pc (?) ╎

γεγονα (–ℵ2) εγω (–1 MK) ℵ 051s M syh sa ╎

txt A 1006. 1841. 2053. 2062 pc (latt) syph |

UBS: γέγοναν

The Accordance Byz text reads:

Καὶ εἶπέν μοι, ˹ Γέγονα. τὸ ˺ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ,

I expected the Byz to agree with the KJV, but the KJV says, , It is done.

for which I would have expected γέγονεν as in Rev 16:17. So I am wondering why the KJV differs from the Byz here.

The variation must be considered so insignificant that Comfort is comfortable with not even commenting on it.

[Timothy Jenney]

...and I would have expected Gk. tetelestai (John 19:30)! ;-)

 

The introduction to NA 28's critical symbols says " + - are used in place of add. and om. where such brevity is not inconsistent with clarity (cf. Ro 16,27)."

Holger Strutwolf, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece (28th, Accordance electronic ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 60*.

 

Here are the relevant apparatus notes from NA28 and CNTTS:

 

Enjoy!

[Ken Simpson]

Hi Enoch, in the NA28 apparatus you will also notice that the - and + signs are links (blue and underlined).

 

clicking on that, or Instant Details'ing the link shows the info that Dr J has above. The apparatus is really nice in that it explains what all the symbols mean in the apparatus itself.

 

 

However, the apparatus does need to be opened in its own zone, you cannot do this from instant details.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Ken Simpson

[Jonathan C. Borland]

Can someone tell me what the minus signs mean in the Nestle symbology?

–ℵ2 [/size] and -1 MK [/size].

 

⸂ ✝ 1 2 pc (?) ╎

γεγονα (–ℵ2) εγω (–1 MK) ℵ 051s M syh sa ╎

txt A 1006. 1841. 2053. 2062 pc (latt) syph |

 

For others following, this is for Rev 21:6 (not 22:6), and the module is NA27-T. The apparatus siglum " ⸂ " in this case refers to the three words in the text, γέγοναν ἐγώ εἰμι. The cross sign ( ✝ ) followed by the numbers 1 and 2 indicates that NA25 only had the first and second words of the three in question, and that only pc = pauci or a few manuscripts attested this. Next, still referring to the three words in the text, the apparatus indicates that some witnesses (ℵ 051s M syh sa) have γέγονα ἐγώ (i.e., they omit εἰμί), and that of these witnesses, the second hand of ℵ (ℵ2) omits γέγονα (i.e., it only has ἐγώ), while ms 1 and part of the Koine or Byzantine tradition of the Apocalypse (1. MK) omit ἐγώ (i.e., they only have γέγονα). The witnesses cited after txt = text (i.e. A 1006. 1841. 2053. 2062 pc (latt) syph) are those that support the three words as printed in the text.

 

 

UBS: γέγοναν

 

The Accordance Byz text reads:

Καὶ εἶπέν μοι, ˹ Γέγονα. τὸ ˺ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ,

 

The GNT-BYZ module also uses a square bracket to indicate variations from its text, Γέγονα τό. The first variation is a split within the Byz tradition indicated in the GNT-BYZ Notes module as "B Γέγονα τό | Γέγονα· ἐγὼ τό ". The first two words after the "B" repeat the text in question (i.e. Γέγονα τό), and the three words after the bar indicate the split Byzantine variation from the text (i.e. Γέγονα· ἐγὼ τό). (Note that this Byzantine variation was also indicated in the NA27 Apparatus above.) The second variation noted in the GNT-BYZ Notes is what the NA27 text reads in place of the Byz text, and is indicated as follows: " N Γέγονα | Γέγοναν. Ἐγώ εἰμι ". That is, the "N" indicates a difference between the Robinson-Pierpont Byz text and the Nestle-Aland27 edition; following the "N" is the Byz text in question (i.e. Γέγονα), and after the bar is what the NA27 text reads in place of the Byz text here (i.e. Γέγοναν. Ἐγώ εἰμι).

 

 

I expected the Byz to agree with the KJV, but the KJV says, It is done.

for which I would have expected γέγονεν as in Rev 16:17. So I am wondering why the KJV differs from the Byz here.

 

The variation must be considered so insignificant that Comfort is comfortable with not even commenting on it.

A better text to choose if one desires a more exact parallel with the KJV would be the GNT-TR or the GNT-TRS modules, since they were designed to reflect the underlying Greek text of the KJV based on various TR editions available to the KJV translators. And indeed, the GNT-TRS has Γέγονεν. ἐγώ εἰμι as you thought it would judging from the KJV at that place.

 

So the various translatable options seem to be the following:

1. ca. 15 mss w/ A etc.: [these things] are finished. I am the Alpha ...
2. ca. 160 mss w/ ℵ Byz etc.: I am the Alpha ... [here γεγονα would have a present meaning]
3. ca. 20 mss w/ TR: it is finished. I am the Alpha ...

Personal TC opinion: Reading 2, if not taken with a present meaning, could have been considered difficult by scribes (i.e. I have become [or I became] the Alpha ...) and thus altered to something familiar, either "it is finished" (reading 3) or "[these things] are finished" (reading 1; cf. 16:17), with the added verb εἰμί to complete the more familiar expression "I AM the Alpha ..." (cf. 1:8, 17; 22:13). On the other hand, if reading 1 is original, then reading 2 derived from it perhaps by accidental omission of a Greek nu, and then the following εἰμί omitted due to redundancy (i.e. I am I am the Alpha ...). Reading 3 seems to be assimilation to 16:17 and shouldn't have invited alteration if original. If the reading of ℵ/Byz is not a blatant scribal error, I think it might be original due to its perceived difficulty which could have invited alteration.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jonathan C. Borland

[Enoch]

 

So the various translatable options seem to be the following:

1. ca. 15 mss w/ A etc.: [these things] are finished. I am the Alpha ...
2. ca. 160 mss w/ ℵ Byz etc.: I am the Alpha ... [here γεγονα would have a present meaning]
3. ca. 20 mss w/ TR: it is finished. I am the Alpha ...

Personal TC opinion: Reading 2, if not taken with a present meaning, could have been considered difficult by scribes (i.e. I have become [or I became] the Alpha ...) and thus altered to something familiar, either "it is finished" (reading 3) or "[these things] are finished" (reading 1; cf. 16:17), with the added verb εἰμί to complete the more familiar expression "I AM the Alpha ..." (cf. 1:8, 17; 22:13). On the other hand, if reading 1 is original, then reading 2 derived from it perhaps by accidental omission of a Greek nu, and then the following εἰμί omitted due to redundancy (i.e. I am I am the Alpha ...). Reading 3 seems to be assimilation to 16:17 and shouldn't have invited alteration if original. If the reading of ℵ/Byz is not a blatant scribal error, I think it might be original due to its perceived difficulty which could have invited alteration.

 

Thanks to all of you for really great and helpful comments, even comments worthy of publication.

 

Yes, IMHO:

 

ℵ/Byz does have perceived difficulty, as it invites the translation: "I have become [and was not before]." A nu could be easily lost, especially since it may be designated by a horizontal line at the end of a text line.