Alfred Persson
Member
13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. (Rev 13:1 KJV)
The reasons scholars give for rejecting "and I [John] stood" and preferring "and he [Dragon] stood" illustrates their inconsistency, the unsoundness of their methodology.
For example, re Rev. 13:1 the textual critical note says:
tc Grk ἐστάθη (estathē, “he stood”). The reading followed by the translation is attested by the better MSS (픓47 א A C 1854 2344 2351 pc lat syh) while the majority of MSS (051 픐 vgmss syph co) have the reading ἐστάθην (estathēn, “I stood”)-Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition
But elsewhere M [Egyptian Coptic], which supports εσταθην "is a better witness in the Apocalypse than elsewhere in the NT"-Beale, G. K. (1999). The Book Of Revelation: A Commentary On The Greek Text (p. 681). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.
So joining the majority text are the majority of critical texts used to evaluate it, including the Egyptian Coptic which is very early and considered weighty in Revelation. Still the Majority Text is overruled. If the Majority reading somehow offended the context or grammar, one might understand the objection. But its the supposed "superior reading" that offends the grammar, and context. The appearance of bias is unmistakable.
The natural antecedent of "he" in "he stood", is Jesus Christ, not the Dragon who is much further back:
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. And JESUS CHRIST stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns... PROPOSED Rev 12:17-13:1.
In addition, what need is there for a transition? Rev. 12:17 clearly ends that phase of the revelation, there is no doubt John is moving on to something different.
Critically speaking, which is more likely? John imprisoned on the island of Patmos informs us he was standing on the seashore (cp καὶ ἔστην καὶ ἰδοὺ Eze 43:6 LXT) when seeing the Beast rise from the sea; or he is adding an unnecessary and confusing clause to transition to a new Beast? It is confusing as standing on the shore of the sea is passive and is not figurative of anything affecting the Beast rising from the sea.
Confirming this, John explicitly says the Dragon powers the Beast (Rev. 13:4), giving the probable reason why he receives worship. Nothing in the text implies John interprets "and the Dragon stood on the sand of the sea."
It is not "critically sound" to prefer the less probable reason for an "anomaly"---that a scribe would add "ν" writing ἐστάθην (I stood) while reading ἐστάθη (he stood). As they themselves argue everywhere else, it's much more likely letters (and words etc.) are dropped.
Finally, Victorinus the Bishop of Pettau who died around 303 AD during the Diocletian persecutions, in a 15th century manuscript copy of his commentary on the Apocalypse (Ottobonianus Lat. 3288 A), reads "And I stood".
To sum up, belief in providential preservation of scripture is no less scientific than believing in textual criticism, but it certainly is more likely God preserved His inspired Word, than logical fallacies of men result in the true text.
The reasons scholars give for rejecting "and I [John] stood" and preferring "and he [Dragon] stood" illustrates their inconsistency, the unsoundness of their methodology.
For example, re Rev. 13:1 the textual critical note says:
tc Grk ἐστάθη (estathē, “he stood”). The reading followed by the translation is attested by the better MSS (픓47 א A C 1854 2344 2351 pc lat syh) while the majority of MSS (051 픐 vgmss syph co) have the reading ἐστάθην (estathēn, “I stood”)-Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition
But elsewhere M [Egyptian Coptic], which supports εσταθην "is a better witness in the Apocalypse than elsewhere in the NT"-Beale, G. K. (1999). The Book Of Revelation: A Commentary On The Greek Text (p. 681). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.
So joining the majority text are the majority of critical texts used to evaluate it, including the Egyptian Coptic which is very early and considered weighty in Revelation. Still the Majority Text is overruled. If the Majority reading somehow offended the context or grammar, one might understand the objection. But its the supposed "superior reading" that offends the grammar, and context. The appearance of bias is unmistakable.
The natural antecedent of "he" in "he stood", is Jesus Christ, not the Dragon who is much further back:
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. And JESUS CHRIST stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns... PROPOSED Rev 12:17-13:1.
In addition, what need is there for a transition? Rev. 12:17 clearly ends that phase of the revelation, there is no doubt John is moving on to something different.
Critically speaking, which is more likely? John imprisoned on the island of Patmos informs us he was standing on the seashore (cp καὶ ἔστην καὶ ἰδοὺ Eze 43:6 LXT) when seeing the Beast rise from the sea; or he is adding an unnecessary and confusing clause to transition to a new Beast? It is confusing as standing on the shore of the sea is passive and is not figurative of anything affecting the Beast rising from the sea.
Confirming this, John explicitly says the Dragon powers the Beast (Rev. 13:4), giving the probable reason why he receives worship. Nothing in the text implies John interprets "and the Dragon stood on the sand of the sea."
It is not "critically sound" to prefer the less probable reason for an "anomaly"---that a scribe would add "ν" writing ἐστάθην (I stood) while reading ἐστάθη (he stood). As they themselves argue everywhere else, it's much more likely letters (and words etc.) are dropped.
Finally, Victorinus the Bishop of Pettau who died around 303 AD during the Diocletian persecutions, in a 15th century manuscript copy of his commentary on the Apocalypse (Ottobonianus Lat. 3288 A), reads "And I stood".
To sum up, belief in providential preservation of scripture is no less scientific than believing in textual criticism, but it certainly is more likely God preserved His inspired Word, than logical fallacies of men result in the true text.
Last edited:
