APPENDIX F
TEXTUAL COMMENTARY FOR REVELATION
Understanding the transmissional history of Revelation is an important foundation for text-critical work in the book. In the introduction to his commentary on Revelation, David Aune writes,
The Greek of Revelation is the most peculiar Greek in the NT, in part because it exhibits interference from Semitic languages, perhaps both Hebrew and Aramaic. The peculiarity of the language of Revelation encouraged many copyists to make ‘improvements’ in the text, with the result that the problem of reconstructing the original text has been made very difficult.*
There are three main Byzantine textual families in Revelation: Koine (𝔐 K or K), Andreas (𝔐 A or A), and Complutensian (𝔐 C or C). Of those three, K tends to retain the author's peculiar Greek, while A and C tend to make ‘improvements’ to the text. Thus, the K family appears to be the best candidate for preserving the autograph text. Although K is comprised of approximately 95 disparate manuscripts representing multiple, independent streams of transmission, all K manuscripts ultimately share a single, common ancestor subsequent to the autograph. This common ancestor appears to be very early and close to the autograph. However, the scribe who wrote the manuscript (and/or the exemplar he was copying from) seems to have had a penchant for omission due to homeoteleuton and homeoarcton. A clear example of this is found in 22:6, where a significant majority of K manuscripts omit δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου, leaving a text that is nonsensical. A second example omission due to homeoteleuton in K is 9:2, where all but four K manuscripts omit και ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου. While the resultant text is still somewhat viable, it is highly likely that this is a case of omission due to homeoteleuton. In all, there appear to be fourteen omissions in K due to homeoteleuton or homeoarcton. If K manuscripts represented multiple, independent streams all tracing back to the autograph, it would be virtually impossible for these omissions to gain widespread acceptance. Such widespread omissions are only possible if all K manuscripts trace back to a single, common ancestor subsequent to the autograph.
In addition to omissions due to homeoteleuton and homeoarcton, K appears to make other scribal errors. In 2:25, a significant majority of K manuscripts read ανοιξω, which is clearly an itacism for αν ηξω. The two renderings sound the same, but the spelling and word break differences significantly affect the meaning. Another likely error is found in 15:2, where K reads εκ της εικονος και εκ του θηριου αυτου rather than εκ του θηριου και εκ της εικονος αυτου. The scribe who made that error likely jumbled the words in his head as he copied his exemplar.
It is remarkable that so many K scribes simply copied the text in front of them without making alterations even in the face of very difficult readings. The K scribes demonstrate a resistance to scribal emendation, even when the text is nonsensical or nearly so. However, because of the clear errors present in K, it cannot by itself provide the base text for Revelation. The errors must be corrected by appealing to the Andreas (A) family.
The Andreas family (so named because of its relationship to the base text included with the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea) is comprised of approximately 57 manuscripts. The texts that are omitted in K due to homeoteleuton and homeoarcton are found in Andreas. Thus, Andreas represents a separate line of transmission unrelated to K (except for the fact that they both ultimately stem from the autograph). However, all A manuscripts also appear to share a single, common ancestor subsequent to the manuscript as indicated by some omissions due to homeoteleuton. Examples of omission due to homeoteleuton in A are found in 5:3 (omission of ανω), 13:14 (omission of τους εμους), 18:2 (omission of φυλακη παντος ορνεου ακαθαρτου και), and 21:8 (omission of και αμαρτωλοις).
Although A appears to have preserved some original readings that were lost in K, A appears to be a recension that includes many clear revisions and harmonizations of the original text. For example, the addition of και ατινα εισι και α χρη γενεσθαι μετα ταυτα at 1:2 appears to be motivated by similar texts at 1:19 and 22:6. Similarly, the reading βασιλεις και at 1:6 appears to be a harmonization of the text to 5:10. A also makes corrections to the peculiar Greek found in K. For example, in 9:14 K reads λεγοντος, which does not agree in gender with φωνην μιαν. Here A corrects the text to read λεγουσαν. Similarly, in 6:10 K reads φωνην μεγαλην, but A corrects it to the more suitable φωνη μεγαλη.
Due to the rampant revisions and corrections found in A, the textual critic must be careful not to adopt the revisions of A when seeking to address the scribal errors in K. Due to the penchant for revision among A manuscripts, the A textual family is highly fragmented, making it quite difficult (if not impossible) to reconstruct an archetype of the A text.
The Complutensian family (C) is comprised of approximately 34 manuscripts that contain the text of Revelation found in the Complutensian Polyglot (hence the name of the family). It is a later family that is a revision of K using A. That the base text C used for revision is K and not A is made clear by the fact that C follows K in the omission of και το τειχος αυτης in 21:15. If C were using A as the base text for revision, it would be unlikely that C would have omitted this text. For the most part C goes back and forth between K and A, sometimes siding with K and sometimes siding with A (while at times choosing an alternate reading that does not have a high level of support in K or A). C manuscripts are highly uniform and closely related with very little deviation from the archetype. Because of their late and revisionary nature, they are of little value in the textual criticism of Revelation.
Besides the 186 manuscripts that comprise the K, A, and C families, there are 108 unclassified manuscripts (listed as O for Other in the commentary below). Due to their disparate nature, there is not much that can be said about their collective character. However, their overall weight can, at times, be of value in determining the text when it is difficult to decide between K and A.
In this volume, the text of Revelation has been determined as follows. The K text is assumed to be the original text unless there is significant evidence to challenge that assumption. For clear scribal errors and suspected cases of omission due to homeoteleuton or homeoarcton, preference is given to A. Other apparent omissions (not due to homoeteleuton or homeoarcton) in K that are included in A tend to involve grammatical peculiarities that are ‘corrected’ in A or harmonizations A makes to other Revelation texts. When A is suspected of correcting K or harmonizing with other texts, the K text is retained. In general, because of the peculiar Greek of Revelation as a whole, the peculiar Greek of K is retained unless there is a compelling reason to depart from it in favor of A. (Due to the late and revisionary nature of C, the witness of that family is not generally given strong consideration.)
The following commentary addresses any variant units where my text departs from Robinson-Pierpont (RP), Hodges-Farstad (HF), and/or K, as well as any variant units where K is split between two or more readings. The justification I provide for my text-critical choices is not given to provide definitive, indisputable answers. Rather, my goal is to present plausible explanations for my text-critical choices.
For variant units that involve only a difference between writing out a number with words or using Greek numerals, the variant that is written out with words is preferred when K is split. This is based on the assumption that scribes would be more likely to abbreviate the fully written form than write out the abbreviation. When K is unified in preferring the numeral, the numeral is written instead. Such variant units are not treated in the commentary below.
In the commentary below, the superscript numerals represent the number of manuscripts for a particular family that support a particular reading. Only the manuscripts that support the main variants are documented. Consequently, the manuscript counts below are not FULL manuscript counts. The reader should also keep in mind that some variant units are calculated from the full collation in Text und Textwert while others are calculated from a combination of the ECM and Hoskier collations. The collations from Text und Textwert will include more manuscripts than the collations from ECM and Hoskier. For the convenience of the reader, I also indicate which readings are supported by RP and HF.
Chapter 1
11 φιλαδελφειαν K 51 A 24 C 26 O 37 HF RP ¦ φιλαδελφιαν K 26 A 23 C 1 O 27
These are two alternate spellings of the same word with no compelling internal evidence to prefer one over the other. However, the external evidence leans toward φιλαδελφειαν. (See also 3:7.)
13 υιον K 53 A 8 O 30 HF ¦ υιω K 28 A 39 C 27 O 35 RP
Scribes likely changed υιον to the more natural υιω. (See also 14:14.)
14 και ως K 40 O 11 HF ¦ ως K 35 A 3 O 27 RP ¦ ωσει K 3 A 33 C 27 O 22 ¦ και ωσει A 9 O 2
The omission of και is likely due to homeoteleuton, as the preceding word is λευκαι. The word ως is strongly supported by K, and there is no compelling reason to prefer ωσει.
17 επεσον K 43 A 21 C 3 O 20 ¦ επεσα K 39 A 26 C 24 O 44 HF RP
These are two alternate forms of the second aorist. In 22:8, επεσον is the clear reading of K. (See also 19:10.)
18 κλειδας K 70 A 5 C 2 O 14 HF ¦ κλεις K 12 A 41 C 24 O 50 RP
These are two alternate spellings of the same word. There is no compelling reason to depart from K.
Chapter 2
8 ος K 18 A 46 C 27 O 56 HF RP ¦ — K 63 O 7
The omission of ος is likely due to homeoteleuton.
10 ημερας K 81 A 2 O 18 HF ¦ ημερων K 2 A 44 C 27 O 45 RP
The word ημερας is the normal accusative of extent of time. If scribes read ημερας as a singular genitive rather than a plural accusative, they might have changed it from a singular to a plural to match δεκα.
13 αις K 88 O 22 HF ¦ εν αις A 49 C 34 O 37 RP
Scribes may have added εν as being stylistically preferable.
14 αλλα K 75 A 13 O 12 HF ¦ αλλ K 6 A 34 C 26 O 48 RP
The longer form is used before a vowel in 2:4. It seems more likely that scribes would drop the final alpha than add it. (See also 2:20.)
15 νικολαιτων K 66 O 21 HF ¦ των νικολαιτων K 16 A 47 C 27 O 41 RP
Scribes may have added the article to bring the text into conformity with 2:6.
18 θυατειροις K 37 A 21 C 26 O 38 HF RP ¦ θυατηροις K 9 A 23 C 1 O 8 ¦ θυατειρη K 31 O 5
The reading θυατειρη may be an attempt to match the singular number in the opening portions of the letters to the other churches. As for the plural forms, the external evidence favors θυατειροις.
20 αλλα K 63 A 6 O 22 HF ¦ αλλ K 19 A 41 C 27 O 36 RP
The longer form is used before a vowel in 2:4. It seems more likely that scribes would drop the final alpha than add it. (See also 2:14.)
25 αν ηξω K 17 A 43 C 27 O 46 HF RP ¦ ανοιξω K 66 O 9
The reading ανοιξω is nonsensical and is likely the result of itacism (η → οι). Because uncials do not have spaces between words, scribes writing minuscules from uncial exemplars could have read this as ανοιξω rather than αν οιξω.
27 κεραμικα K 46 A 39 C 21 O 43 HF RP ¦ κεραμεικα K 31 A 5 C 5 O 11
This is a spelling difference with no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. However, the external evidence leans heavily toward κεραμικα.
Chapter 3
1 και K 79 O 18 HF ¦ οτι K 4 A 46 C 27 O 42 RP
Scribes may have changed και to οτι to draw a stronger connection between ονομα and ζης. However, both readings make sense, and there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
2a στηρισον K 46 A 3 C 23 O 19 RP ¦ στηριξον K 11 A 30 C 3 O 25 ¦ τηρησον K 27 A 13 C 1 O 8 HF
Some scribes may have inadvertently dropped the initial sigma and subsequently changed ι to η, resulting in τηρησον. The words στηρισον and στηριξον are different forms of the same word with no compelling internal evidence to choose one over the other. Thus, the reading with greater support from K manuscripts is preferred.
2b εμελλες αποβαλλειν K 41 A 1 O 12 HF RP ¦ ημελλες αποβαλλειν K 36 A 9 O 6 ¦ εμελλον αποθανειν K 1 A 17 O 23 ¦ εμελλες αποβαλειν K 1 A 2 C 26 O 5 ¦ εμελλον αποθνησκειν K 1 A 13 C 1 O 2 ¦ μελλει αποθανειν K 1 O 3
A is divided between three readings and is not of much help here. The words αποθανειν and αποθνησκειν may be scribal changes influenced by the word νεκρος in the previous verse. K clearly reads αποβαλλειν but is closely split between εμελλες and ημελλες, which are different spellings of the same word. K prefers εδυνατο over ηδυνατο in 5:3, 7:9, 14:3, and 15:8. So, in this case εμελλες is preferred over ημελλες. (See also 10:4.)
3a και ηκουσας και τηρει K 4 A 35 C 27 O 45 HF RP ¦ — K 80 A 1 O 14
The omission of και ηκουσας και τηρει is likely due to homeoarcton.
3b γνωση K 68 O 38 HF ¦ γνως K 15 A 45 C 27 O 22 RP
The words ου μη generally anticipate the use of the subjunctive. It seems that scribes would be more likely to change the future indicative to an aorist subjunctive than vice versa.
5 ουτος K 35 A 40 C 3 O 42 HF RP ¦ ουτω[ς] K 30 A 6 C 24 O 19
Both variants make good sense, and scribes frequently use the letters ο and ω interchangeably. However, the external evidence of A and O favors ουτος.
7 φιλαδελφεια K 46 A 27 C 27 O 30 HF RP ¦ φιλαδελφια K 39 A 18 O 29
Manuscripts are nearly evenly split. However, 1:11 leans toward φιλαδελφεια.
12a απο K 60 O 29 HF ¦ εκ K 24 A 46 C 27 O 31 RP
The repetition of απο is the harder reading stylistically. It seems that scribes would be more likely to change απο to εκ than vice versa.
12b ονομα K 72 A 4 O 24 ¦ ονομα μου K 12 A 42 C 27 O 37 HF RP
In 2:17, the author suggests that the new name is not the name of Christ. The phrase το ονομα το καινον in 3:12 appears to be a reference to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 62:2, which reads το ονομα το καινον in some manuscripts and το ονομα σου το καινον in other manuscripts. Regardless of which variant the author of Revelation may have had in mind, the text would be referring to a new name the person was to receive rather than to a new name that Christ was to receive. Consequently, the omission of μου appears to make better sense of the Isaiah 62:2 reference. While το ονομα το καινον may seem awkward at first glance, the definite article is likely used in a possessive sense. The addition of μου may also be an assimilation to 2:3, 2:13, and 3:8, which all have the phrase το ονομα μου.
19 ζηλευε K 74 O 32 HF ¦ ζηλωσον K 3 A 45 C 26 O 31 RP
Scribes may have changed the present ζηλευε to the aorist ζηλωσον to bring the command into conformity with the aorist command that follows. However, the author mixes present and aorist commands elsewhere, such as in 2:5. Whatever the case may be, there is no compelling reason to depart from K. (See also 11:1.)
Chapter 4
2 ευθεως K 77 O 16 HF ¦ και ευθεως K 7 A 45 C 27 O 46 RP
Scribes may have added και as being stylistically preferable. There are multiple instances of A including και at the beginning of a clause when K omits it. (See also 4:4, 11:13, 13:4, 13:18, and 20:3.)
4 κυκλοθεν K 62 O 7 HF ¦ και κυκλοθεν K 17 A 44 C 27 O 48 RP
Scribes may have added και as being stylistically preferable. There are multiple instances of A including και at the beginning of a clause when K omits it. (See also 4:2, 11:13, 13:4, 13:18, and 20:3.)
7 ζωον K 7 A 48 C 34 O 48 RP ¦ — K 75 A 1 O 30 HF
The omission of ζωον is likely due to homeoteleuton.
8a και K 56 A 31 C 1 O 24 ¦ και τα K 36 A 19 C 33 O 55 HF RP
The absence of the article is the more difficult reading, so it is surprising that A leans towards its omission. It seems more likely that scribes would add τα than remove it.
8b αγιος (3 times) K 32 A 41 C 2 O 42 RP ¦ αγιος (9 times) K 42 A 3 C 24 O 17 HF
The external support for αγιος appearing nine times is rather weak. If the nine-time occurrence of αγιος were original, it would be hard to imagine scribes intentionally omitting six of the occurrences, which could be perceived as diminishing the holiness of God. It is easier to imagine scribes expanding the text to magnify the holiness of God.
Chapter 5
8 προσευχαι K 42 A 8 O 18 HF RP ¦ προσευχων K 34 O 2 ¦ αι προσευχαι K 6 A 36 C 27 O 39
The reading προσευχων is grammatically awkward, as the reader anticipates a form of προσευχη that will match the case of the relative pronoun αι. While προσευχαι flows better grammatically, the sense is more difficult, as it equates the golden bowls themselves with the prayers of the saints rather than the incense inside the bowls. Because both readings have difficulties, preference is given to προσευχαι, which has a much greater level of external support when considering the additional support of the reading αι προσευχαι. The addition of the article before προσευχαι is likely a scribal adjustment for stylisitic purposes.
10 βασιλευσουσιν K 50 A 32 C 31 O 40 HF RP ¦ βασιλευουσιν K 41 A 19 C 3 O 28
According to 20:6, the reigning will happen in the future. The argument could be made that scribes altered the present to the future in light of 20:6, however it may simply be that a scribe inadvertently dropped the first sigma. The external evidence leans toward βασιλευσουσιν.
13 τω θρονω K 60 O 23 HF ¦ του θρονου K 20 A 46 C 27 O 37 RP
In Revelation both K and A have the genitive following the phrase καθημαι επι four times (4:9,10; 5:1,7). In two other instances, K has the dative following the phrase while A is split between the dative and the genitive (7:10; 21:5). And in four other cases, K uses the dative, while A uses the genitive (5:13; 6:16; 7:15; 19:4). Since A is known to make corrections to K readings, it is preferable to follow K in these instances. (See also 6:16 and 19:4b.)
Chapter 6
10 φωνην μεγαλην K 71 C 1 O 16 HF ¦ φωνη μεγαλη K 11 A 46 C 26 O 44 RP
The dative is more natural and occurs nine other times in Revelation in similar constructions. Thus, it seems more likely that scribes would change the accusative to dative than vice versa.
11 αυτοις K 85 O 10 HF ¦ αυτοις εκαστω K 6 A 29 C 32 O 55 RP
Scribes likely added εκαστω to clarify that each person was to receive a robe rather than there being only one robe given to them all.
14 ελισσομενος K 63 A 7 O 21 HF ¦ ελισσομενον K 17 A 6 C 27 O 31 RP ¦ ειλισσομενον K 1 A 22 O 5 ¦ ειλισσομενος K 3 A 10 O 4
The neuter ελισσομενον is far more natural here as it pairs nicely with the preceding word βιβλιον. The masculine ελισσομενος pairs with ουρανος, but it is a bit awkward due to the separation between the two words. Thus, it seems more likely that scribes would change ελισσομενος to ελισσομενον than vice versa.
16 τω θρονω K 71 O 20 HF ¦ του θρονου K 11 A 45 C 27 O 40 RP
In Revelation both K and A have the genitive following the phrase καθημαι επι four times (4:9,10; 5:1,7). In two other instances, K has the dative following the phrase while A is split between the dative and the genitive (7:10; 21:5). And in four other cases, K uses the dative, while A uses the genitive (5:13; 6:16; 7:15; 19:4). Since A is known to make corrections to K readings, it is preferable to follow K in these instances. (See also 5:13 and 19:4b.)
Chapter 7
11 αυτου K 75 O 22 HF ¦ — K 8 A 45 C 27 O 37 RP
The omission of αυτου could be due to homeoteleuton. However, the omission may also be intentional, as the referent of αυτου is not immediately clear from the context, making the possessive pronoun stylistically awkward. It seems more likely that scribes would either intentionally or unintentionally omit αυτου than add it.
14 επλυναν K 31 A 43 C 27 O 49 HF RP ¦ επλατυναν K 52 A 2 O 11
Scribes may have either inadvertently dropped the letters ατ or intentionally changed the text to read επλυναν, thinking that it made better sense. However, Pseudo-Athanasius in Four Discourses against the Arians misquotes Revelation 22:14 as, “Blessed are those who broaden their robes.” Thus, the idea of a broadened robe carrying positive connotations was not a foreign concept. This is also evidenced to a certain extent by the scribes and Pharisees who made their tassles long to receive public recognition (Matthew 23:5). In Ancient Rome, senators wore robes with broad purple stripes, offering a larger and more obvious field for elaboration. Thus, the idea of broad clothing marking status conferred on those coming out the great tribulation is not without merit. Nevertheless, επλυναν makes better sense in conjuction with ελευκαναν εν τω αιματι του αρνιου. Given the weight of the external evidence, preference is given to επλυναν.
Chapter 8
3 δωση K 50 A 22 C 7 O 27 RP ¦ δωσει K 30 A 22 C 20 O 31 HF
The word ινα is usually followed by a subjunctive. The reading δωσει is likely the result of itacism.
13 τους κατοικουντας K 82 O 26 HF ¦ τοις κατοικουσιν K 2 A 44 C 26 O 36 RP
The word ουαι is more naturally followed by the dative. It seems more likely that scribes would change the accusative to dative than vice versa.
Chapter 9
2 και ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου K 4 A 35 C 26 O 46 HF RP ¦ — K 79 A 7 O 17
The omission of ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου is likely due to homeoteleuton.
11 αββαδων K 26 A 36 C 12 O 9 HF RP ¦ αβααδδων K 20 O 6 ¦ αββααδων K 10 O 11 ¦ αββααδδων K 14 A 1 O 5 ¦ αββαδδων K 2 A 1 C 11 O 6 ¦ αβαδδων K 2 C 3 O 10 ¦ αβααδων K 4 A 4 O 7
There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one spelling over another. Consequently, αββαδων is preferred due to the weight of the external evidence.
14 λεγοντος K 73 O 23 HF ¦ λεγουσαν K 7 A 37 C 26 O 36 RP
The word λεγουσαν agrees in gender with φωνην μιαν. The word λεγοντος appears to be an awkward assimilation to θεου. It seems more likely that scribes would change λεγοντος to λεγουσαν than vice versa.
20 και τα χαλκα K 6 A 41 C 27 O 31 HF RP ¦ και χαλκα A 4 O 12 ¦ — K 78 O 17
The omission of και τα χαλκα is likely due to homeoarcton.
21 φαρμακων K 66 O 30 HF ¦ φαρμακειων K 12 A 44 C 27 O 31 RP
Both words can be used to mean sorcery. Scribes may have changed φαρμακων to φαρμακειων to match the author's use of a form of φαρμακεια in 18:23.
Chapter 10
4 εμελλον K 43 A 30 C 27 O 38 HF ¦ ημελλον K 40 A 15 O 23 RP
K prefers εδυνατο over ηδυνατο in 5:3, 7:9, 14:3, and 15:8, so εμελλον is preferable here. The overall external evidence also leans toward εμελλον. (See also 3:2b.)
Chapter 11
1 εγειρε K 48 A 26 C 2 O 30 HF ¦ εγειραι K 36 A 15 C 22 O 26 RP
Scribes may have changed the present εγειρε to the aorist εγειραι to bring the command into conformity with the aorist command that follows. However, the author mixes present and aorist commands elsewhere, such as in 2:5. Whatever the case may be, there is no compelling reason to depart from K. (See also 3:19.)
4 εστωτες K 63 O 24 HF ¦ εστωσαι K 19 A 45 C 25 O 36 RP
The word εστωσαι agrees in gender with the antecedent λυχνιαι, while εστωτες agrees with the more distant antecedent ουτοι. It seems more likely that scribes would change εστωτες to agree with λυχνιαι than change εστωσαι to agree with ουτοι.
13 εν K 80 O 15 HF ¦ και εν K 2 A 46 C 26 O 47 RP
Scribes may have added και as being stylistically preferable. There are multiple instances of A including και at the beginning of a clause when K omits it. (See also 4:2, 4:4, 13:4, 13:18, and 20:3.)
15 λεγοντες K 44 O 10 HF ¦ λεγουσαι K 39 A 47 C 26 O 51 RP
Because λεγουσαι agrees in gender with the antecedent φωναι, it seems more likely that scribes would change λεγοντες to λεγουσαι than vice versa. K uses a masculine participle with φωνη in 9:14 as well. Although the external evidence weighs heavily in favor of λεγουσαι, it may simply mean that many scribes picked up on this particular correction.
16a οι ενωπιον του θρονου του θεου οι καθηνται K 68 O 20 HF ¦ οι ενωπιον του θεου καθημενοι K 3 A 18 C 26 O 13 RP ¦ ενωπιον του θεου καθημενοι A 27 O 4
The first reading is a much harder reading stylistically. It is unlikely the scribes would change the second or third readings to the first reading. The omission of του θρονου might be due to homeoarcton.
16b επεσον K 50 A 29 C 25 O 34 HF RP ¦ επεσαν K 33 A 18 C 1 O 27
These are two alternate forms of the second aorist. The preferred form throughout Revelation is επεσον. The external evidence also leans toward επεσον. (See also 17:10 and 18:23.)
19 ηνοιχθη K 79 O 15 HF ¦ ηνοιγη K 4 A 46 C 26 O 45 RP
The only difference is that ηνοιχθη is first aorist and ηνοιγη is second aorist. The author writes ηνοιγη in 15:5, but he writes ηνεωχθη (an alternate spelling of the first aorist) in 20:12. Thus, there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
Chapter 13
4 τις K 71 A 2 O 18 HF ¦ και τις K 10 A 44 C 27 O 43 RP
Scribes may have added και as being stylistically preferable. There are multiple instances of A including και at the beginning of a clause when K omits it. (See also 4:2, 4:4, 11:13, 13:18, and 20:3.)
8a αυτον K 71 A 11 O 24 HF ¦ αυτω K 11 A 36 C 27 O 37 RP
In 14:7 the author writes αυτον after προσκυνεω. In 19:10, he writes αυτω after προσκυνεω. Thus, there is no strong argument from internal evidence to prefer one over the other. Consequently, there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
8b ων ου K 34 A 47 C 27 O 43 HF RP ¦ ων ουτε K 46 O 5
The word following this variant unit is γεγραπται. In uncial script, the letters τε and γε look very similar (ΤΕ ¦ ΓΕ). A scribe may have read ΓΕ as ΤΕ and written ουτε. He may have then looked at his exemplar again and seen the same two letters as ΓΕ and written γεγραπται, creating an addition due to imprecise dittography. Whatever the case may be, the external evidence outweighs any considerations from internal evidence.
10 αποκτενει δει αυτον εν μαχαιρα K 5 A 23 C 34 O 43 RP ¦ δει αυτον K 80 O 5 HF ¦ αποκτεινει δει αυτον εν μαχαιρα A 12 O 2
While the argument could be made that the terseness of the second reading gave rise to alternate readings to fill in the gaps, the second reading is simply nonsensical; some text seems to be omitted. Consequently, the first reading is preferred due to the weight of external evidence outside of K.
11 κερατα K 72 A 1 O 11 ¦ κερατα δυο K 9 A 45 C 27 O 48 HF RP
Whenever horns are mentioned elsewhere in Revelation, the number of horns is stated explicitly as carrying symbolic meaning. The same could be true here in which the two horns represent the two beasts. However, in this case horns are mentioned in comparison to the horns of a particular animal, which is not the case elsewhere in Revelation. Thus, it seems that the inclusion of δυο may be a scribal assimilation to other places in Revelation where the number of horns is explicitly stated to convey symbolic meaning.
16a δωσωσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K 44 O 11 HF RP ¦ δωσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K 6 C 34 O 5 ¦ δωσιν αυτοις χαραγμα A 21 O 15 ¦ δωσουσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K 24 O 4 ¦ δωσωσιν αυτοις χαραγμα K 6 A 10 O 3 ¦ δωσουσιν αυτοις χαραγμα A 7 O 3
A is highly fragmented for this variant unit. Consequently, the only viable option is one of the K readings. K is split primarily between the subjunctive δωσωσιν and the indicative δωσουσιν. The word ινα generally anticipates the use of the subjunctive. While the argument could be made that it would be more likely for scribes to change δωσουσιν to δωσωσιν, in this case the external evidence leans heavily toward a subjunctive verb form.
16b χειρος K 63 O 6 ¦ της χειρος K 19 A 46 C 27 O 46 HF RP
In 8:4 and 19:2 the author also uses an anarthrous χειρος followed by a possessive pronoun. Scribes may have added the article for stylistic purposes.
18 ο K 73 O 24 HF ¦ και ο K 8 A 37 C 27 O 35 RP
Scribes may have added και as being stylistically preferable. There are multiple instances of A including και at the beginning of a clause when K omits it. (See also 4:2, 4:4, 11:13, 13:4, and 20:3.)
Chapter 14
3 ουδεις K 31 A 44 C 27 O 56 HF RP ¦ ουδε εις K 49 A 2 O 5
A scribe may have read the first four letters of the word ουδεις as ουδε, written ουδε in his manuscript, looked at the manuscript again to see εις, and written εις, thereby creating an addition due to dittography. Whatever the case may be, the external evidence outweighs any considerations from internal evidence.
4 εαν K 75 O 20 HF ¦ αν K 6 A 46 C 27 O 39 RP
In the New Testament the words εαν and αν are used interchangeably after οπου. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. Consequently, there is no reason to depart from K.
8 αυτης K 39 A 35 C 24 O 48 HF ¦ ταυτης K 38 O 8 RP
The word ταυτης is a very difficult reading because there is no clear referant that the word seems to be pointing to. The word αυτης follows πορνεια in 2:21, 17:2, 17:4, and 19:2. While an argument could be made that scribes changed ταυτης to the more familiar and stylistically preferable αυτης, the reading ταυτης appears to simply be a copying error, as it differs from αυτης by only one letter. Furthermore, the external evidence strongly favors αυτης.
14 υιον K 51 A 8 O 11 HF ¦ υιω K 26 A 29 C 27 O 49 RP
It seems more likely that scribes would change υιον to the more natural υιω than vice versa. (See also 1:13.)
16 τη νεφελη K 63 O 3 ¦ την νεφελην K 22 A 34 C 33 O 52 HF RP ¦ της νεφελης K 4 A 13 O 17
K uses the dative in 7:10 as well. Scribes likely changed the dative to an accusative to match 14:14. Other scribes likely changed the dative to a genitive to match 14:15.
18a εν κραυγη K 54 A 7 O 29 HF ¦ κραυγη K 26 A 41 C 32 O 25 RP ¦ φωνη K 4 A 1 O 16
The omission of εν is likely due to homeoteleuton.
18b ηκμασεν η σταφυλη της γης K 83 O 12 HF ¦ ηκμασαν αι σταφυλαι αυτης A 41 C 32 O 43 RP
Both readings make good sense. In Matthew 7:16 and Luke 6:44, the singular form is used in a collective sense as it is here in K, but perhaps some scribes preferred to change it to the plural. There is no compelling reason to depart from K.
19 εξεβαλεν K 72 O 16 HF ¦ εβαλεν K 10 A 44 C 27 O 41 RP
Scribes likely changed εξεβαλεν to εβαλεν to match εβαλεν later in the verse and because the use of εξεβαλεν is a bit awkward with the preposition εις.
Chapter 15
2a του θηριου και εκ της εικονος K 2 A 47 C 27 O 38 HF RP ¦ της εικονος και εκ του θηριου K 75 O 6
The second reading is by far the harder reading. If the second reading were original, it would not be surprising if scribes changed it to the first reading to match the pattern used elsewhere (14:9,11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). However, the second reading is so difficult that it is borderline nonsensical. Therefore, the strong external evidence for the first reading makes it the preferable choice.
2b τας K 57 A 1 O 27 HF ¦ — K 26 A 46 C 27 O 34 RP
The omission of τας is likely due to homeoteleuton.
3 δουλου K 74 O 47 ¦ του δουλου K 7 A 52 C 33 O 28 HF RP
Scribes may have added του before δουλου to bring the phrase into alignment with the phrase του αρνιου later in the verse. {Note: Hoskier's collation is inaccurate, which would have mislead HF's text-critical choice. RP is aware of the inaccuracy of Hoskier's collation and consciously chooses του δουλου.}
4a δοξαση K 41 A 15 C 26 O 27 HF RP ¦ δοξασει K 42 A 32 C 1 O 33
The subjunctive fits the context better, as the preceding verb is also a subjunctive. While the argument could be made that scribes would have been more likely to change the indicative to the subjunctive than vice versa, it is also possible that δοξασει is simply the result of itacism.
4b παντες K 71 O 26 HF ¦ παντα τα εθνη K 12 A 46 C 27 O 29 RP
Scribes likely changed παντες to παντα τα εθνη to assimilate the text to 12:5, 14:8, 18:3, and 18:23.
6 πληγας K 72 O 17 HF ¦ πληγας εκ του ναου K 2 A 44 C 1 O 38 RP ¦ πληγας εκ του ουρανου C 26 O 4 ¦ {εκ του ναου before oι εχοντες} K 8
The addition of εκ του ναου may be an assimilation to 14:17. If so, some scribes added εκ του ναου before οι εχοντες and others added it after πληγας. The desire on the part of scribes to make the location explicit is evidenced by the fact that C includes the phrase εκ του ουρανου rather than εκ του ναου, which is a variation that still seeks to align with 14:17. But because of the lack of unity regarding the prepositional phrase, it is preferable to follow the primary K text. (See also 16:1b.)
8 εκ του καπνου K 70 O 16 HF ¦ του καπνου K 8 O 1 ¦ καπνου K 1 A 44 C 27 O 44 RP
In the New Testament, the genetive of content is not generally preceded by a preposition or an article. Stylistically, the first reading is a bit awkward, which might have prompted scribes to remove the words εκ του.
Chapter 16
1a μεγαλης φωνης K 56 A 1 O 6 ¦ φωνης μεγαλης K 25 A 42 C 27 O 53 HF RP
Scribes likely changed the order to φωνης μεγαλης to bring the phrase into alignment with 11:12 and 21:3.
1b λεγουσης K 80 O 16 ¦ εκ του ναου λεγουσης K 1 A 39 C 27 O 40 HF RP
This may be an assimilation to 14:17. It seems unlikely that scribes would inadvertently omit εκ του ναου in two separate locations. (See also 15:6.)
3 ψυχη K 78 O 18 HF ¦ ψυχη ζωσα K 4 A 45 C 27 O 34 RP ¦ ψυχη ζωης K 1 O 8
Scribes likely added ζωσα to bring the text into alignment with the Septuagint translation of Genesis 1:24. Other scribes likely added ζωης to bring the text into alignment with the Septuagint translation of Genesis 1:30.
5 ει ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος K 20 A 26 C 27 O 20 RP ¦ ει ο ων και ος ην οσιος K 34 O 1 ¦ ει ο ων και ο ην οσιος K 17 O 17 HF ¦ ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος K 1 A 10 O 9 ¦ ει ο ων και ος ην ο οσιος K 7
K is split between three main readings, so preference is given to the primary A reading, which also has the greatest level of manuscript support overall. While one could make the argument that the second reading gave rise to the other readings, the degree of difficulty of the reading arouses suspicion that it was corrupt in the K archetype.
8 τεταρτος K 66 O 25 HF ¦ τεταρτος αγγελος K 18 A 46 C 27 O 36 RP
The word αγγελος also appears in A for the second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh angels in chapter 16 while being absent in K. In those other instances the overall manuscript support is lower than it is here. Nevertheless, it is a telltale sign that this too is likely a scribal addition attempting to bring uniformity to the list.
10 εμασωντο K 46 A 16 C 25 O 20 HF RP ¦ εμασσωντο K 32 A 24 C 1 O 23
These are two alternate spellings of the same word, and there is no compelling internal evidence to support one spelling over the other. The first reading is preferred because it has slightly more support from K while also having a good level of support from A.
12 αυτου την φιαλην K 53 O 10 ¦ την φιαλην αυτου K 27 A 47 C 27 O 52 HF RP
Scribes likely changed αυτου την φιαλην to την φιαλην αυτου in order to assimilate the text to verses 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 17.
16 μαγεδων K 73 A 8 O 5 HF ¦ αρμαγεδων K 7 A 26 C 27 O 44 RP
Because this is the only reference to this location in the New Testament, there is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one spelling over the other. Thus, there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
21 αυτη K 37 A 18 O 19 HF ¦ αυτης K 41 A 25 C 27 O 39 RP
If the original reading was ΑΥΤΗΣΦΟΔΡΑ, it would be easy for the scribe to read ΑΥΤΗΣ in the exemplar, write ΑΥΤΗΣ in his own manuscript, and then return to the exemplar and see ΣΦΟΔΡΑ, not realizing that he was duplicating the letter Σ. This would result in dittography. If the original reading was ΑΥΤΗΣΣΦΟΔΡΑ, again it would be easy enough for the scribe to read ΑΥΤΗ in the exemplar and write ΑΥΤΗ in his own manuscript, but it would be harder for the scribe to then make sense out of ΣΣΦΟΔΡΑ. The scribe could assume that Σ was inadvertently written twice and omit it, or the scribe could accidentally overlook one of the sigmas. However, the first explanation is more straightforward. The reading αυτης could also be an attempt to assimilate to the genetive following της πληγης earlier in the verse.
Chapter 17
3a εν K 23 A 39 C 27 O 57 HF RP ¦ — K 62 O 2
The omission of εν could be due to homeoteleuton.
3b θηριον το K 51 O 6 HF ¦ θηριον K 26 A 47 C 27 O 53 RP ¦ το θηριον το K 8
The first reading is undoubtedly the more difficult reading. Although the beast with blasphemous names written on its head had been mentioned in 13:1, the fact that the beast was scarlet had not been mentioned. It seems that the author either forgot that he had not mentioned that detail previously or assumed that the color of the beast was common knowledge. It is likely that scribes removed the word το to account for the fact that a red beast had not yet been mentioned. Other scribes seemingly added το before θηριον to make the noun definite to match the definite substantival adjective.
4 τα ακαθαρτα της πορνειας της γης K 73 O 15 HF ¦ τα ακαθαρτα της πορνειας αυτης K 6 A 40 C 27 O 39 RP
Scribes likely changed της γης to αυτης to assimilate the text to 2:21, 14:8, 17:2, 18:3, and 19:2.
6 του K 73 O 14 HF ¦ εκ του K 9 A 44 C 26 O 39 RP
Scribes likely added εκ to match the εκ found later in the verse.
8a την γην K 70 A 8 O 18 HF ¦ επι της γης K 12 A 37 C 27 O 42 RP
Although επι της γης follows a form of κατοικεω in 3:10, 6:10, 8:13, 11:10 (twice), 13:8, and 13:14 (twice), κατοικουντες is followed by την γην in 17:2. Thus, the author uses both cases following κατοικεω. Scribes may have written επι της γης here in 17:8 to assimilate to the eight other times in Revelation where that phrase follows a form of κατοικεω. (Although, it is questionable why they would not have done so in 17:2 as well.) Perhaps the similar phrasing of 13:8 influenced them to make an adjustment in 17:8. Whatever the case may be, there is no compelling reason to deviate from K.
8b το ονομα K 69 O 29 HF ¦ τα ονοματα K 13 A 45 C 27 O 30 RP
Both here and in 13:8, the A scribes seem to have changed the singular to a plural to match the plural noun phrase οι κατοικουντες and the plural relative pronoun ων.
8c του βιβλιου K 65 O 21 HF ¦ το βιβλιον K 13 A 29 C 27 O 32 RP
In the five other verses in Revelation where the phrase written in the book(s) occurs (13:8; 20:12,15; 21:27; 22:18), the author does not use επι but εν followed by the dative. Thus, in this case, there is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. Consequently, there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
10 επεσον K 47 A 12 C 14 O 40 HF RP ¦ επεσαν K 36 A 33 C 13 O 19
These are two alternate forms of the second aorist. The preferred form throughout Revelation is επεσον. (See also 11:16b and 18:23.)
11 ουτος K 69 O 27 HF ¦ αυτος K 14 A 43 C 27 O 33 RP
Both readings make sense, and there is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. Consequently, there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
13 εξουσιαν K 62 O 26 HF ¦ την εξουσιαν K 21 A 45 C 27 O 34 RP
Scribes likely added the article to match the article preceding δυναμιν.
18 επι K 52 O 7 HF ¦ — K 30 A 46 C 27 O 51 RP
The repitition of επι is a bit awkward stylistically. Scribes likely removed the second επι in an attempt to improve the style.
Chapter 18
3 πεπτωκασι K 62 A 6 O 29 RP ¦ πεπωκε A 15 C 29 O 13 ¦ πεπωκασι K 18 O 11 HF ¦ πεποτικε A 13 C 3 O 3
Due to the parrallel text in 14:8, along with the mention of wine, it seems more likely that scribes would omit the letter tau to have the text read πεπωκασι. But if the original text read πεπωκασι, there would be little motivation for scribes to add the letter tau. The reading πεποτικε is a clear harmonization with 14:8. The reading πεπωκε is likely an alteration of πεπτωκασι or πεπωκασι.
5 αυτης K 56 A 1 C 26 O 11 HF ¦ αυτοις K 7 O 1 ¦ — K 19 A 45 C 1 O 49 RP
The word αυτης is a bit awkward given that τα αδικηματα αυτης follows later in the verse. It seems more likely that scribes would remove αυτης than add it.
6a τα διπλα ως και αυτη και K 67 O 2 HF ¦ αυτη διπλα K 13 A 42 C 34 O 41 RP
Stylistically, the longer text is a bit awkward. It seems more likely that scribes would attempt to improve the flow by changing the longer text to the shorter text than vice versa.
6b αυτης K 62 A 5 O 23 HF ¦ — K 20 A 39 C 27 O 35 RP
Scribes may have viewed the inclusion of αυτης as unnecessary and disruptive to the flow between the dative noun ποτηριω and the dative relative pronoun ω. If αυτης were not original, it seems unlikely that scribes would add it.
7 οτι καθημαι K 14 A 25 C 34 O 38 HF RP ¦ οτι καθως K 51 ¦ οτι ειμι καθως K 8 ¦ καθημαι A 20 O 14
The reading καθως has zero support outside of K. It is a difficult reading due to the lack of a verb and is probably the result of a scribe incorrectly copying the word καθημαι.
8 πενθος K 70 O 16 HF ¦ και πενθος K 10 A 46 C 27 O 43 RP
Scribes likely added και for stylistic purposes.
13a κιναμωμον K 4 A 31 C 25 O 19 HF RP ¦ κιναμωμου K 34 A 2 O 20 ¦ κινναμωμου K 38 A 2 O 9 ¦ κινναμωμον K 1 A 11 C 2 O 11
The genitive seems to be an inadvertent continuation of the genitives occurring at the end of verse 12 and would have the meaning articles made of cinnamon, which is nonsensical.
13b οινον και ελαιον K 3 A 37 C 34 O 46 HF RP ¦ ελαιον K 70 A 2 O 9 ¦ ελαιον και οινον K 12 O 6
The omission is likely due either to homeoteleuton (οινον και) or homeoarcton (και οινον).
15 και K 62 O 9 HF ¦ — K 21 A 45 C 27 O 53 RP
This variant unit must be considered with the one that follows. The two primary options are as follows: (1) include και here and omit it in verse 16, or (2) omit και here and include it in verse 16. (Other iterations do not have a high level of support.) Including και here is a bit awkward, and so it seems likely that scribes would have removed it here and added it before λεγοντες in verse 16. Furthermore, the omission of και here and the inclusion of it in the variant unit below may be a scribal assimilation to verse 19.
16a λεγοντες K 48 A 3 O 13 ¦ και λεγοντες K 28 A 28 C 27 O 39 HF RP ¦ — K 1 A 14 O 8
See the explanation in the previous variant unit.
16b ουαι K 14 A 43 C 26 O 39 HF RP ¦ — K 68 A 2 C 1 O 15
The omission of ουαι is likely due to homeoteleuton.
16c βυσσον K 63 A 6 O 13 HF ¦ βυσσινον K 18 A 39 C 27 O 48 RP
The substantival adjective and noun are used somewhat interchangeably, and there is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. Consequently, there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
23 οτι οι K 21 A 42 C 26 O 45 RP ¦ οι K 57 C 1 O 6 HF ¦ οτι K 2 A 3 O 8
The omission of οτι is likely due to homeoteleuton.
Chapter 19
4a επεσον K 52 A 23 C 7 O 38 HF RP ¦ επεσαν K 28 A 21 C 20 O 13
These are two alternate forms of the second aorist. The preferred form throughout Revelation is επεσον. The external evidence also leans toward επεσον. (See also 11:16b and 17:10.)
4b τω θρονω K 66 A 3 O 33 HF ¦ του θρονου K 15 A 37 C 27 O 36 RP
In Revelation both K and A have the genitive following the phrase καθημαι επι four times (4:9,10; 5:1,7). In two other instances, K has the dative following the phrase while A is split between the dative and the genitive (7:10; 21:5). And in four other cases, K uses the dative, while A uses the genitive (5:13; 6:16; 7:15; 19:4). Since A is known to make corrections to K readings, it is preferable to follow K in these instances. (See also 5:13 and 6:16.)
9 το K 52 A 33 C 25 O 38 RP ¦ τον K 29 A 11 C 2 O 22 HF
All lexicons that mention the masculine form of δειπνον say that it was a late arrival. If it did not exist in the first century, it cannot be original. (See also 19:17.)
10 επεσον K 40 A 9 C 19 O 39 ¦ επεσα K 41 A 34 C 14 O 29 HF RP
These are two alternate forms of the second aorist. In 22:8, επεσον is the clear reading of K. (See also 1:17.)
13 κεκληται K 65 A 3 C 1 O 27 HF ¦ καλειται K 15 A 41 C 26 O 43 RP
Scribes may have changed κεκληται to καλειται to assimilate this text to 11:8.
14 τα K 48 A 7 C 25 O 23 HF RP ¦ — K 26 A 31 C 2 O 35
The omission of τα is likely due to homeoteleuton.
17a εν K 54 A 4 O 17 HF ¦ — K 26 A 41 C 27 O 43 RP
The omission of εν is likely due to homeoteleuton.
17b το δειπνον το μεγα του K 40 A 6 C 24 O 23 RP ¦ τον δειπνον τον μεγαν του K 31 A 1 C 1 O 24 HF ¦ το δειπνον του μεγαλου A 26 C 1 O 7 ¦ τον δειπνον του μεγαλου A 10 O 1
All lexicons that mention the masculine form of δειπνον say that it was a late arrival. If it did not exist in the first century, it cannot be original. The words το μεγα του could easily be misread as του μεγαλου. (See also 19:9.)
19 τον K 53 A 2 C 1 O 17 HF ¦ — K 26 A 43 C 26 O 43 RP
Scribes may have omitted τον to assimilate the text to 12:17.
Chapter 20
2 ο K 42 A 12 C 27 O 32 HF RP ¦ — K 36 A 32 O 26
Scribes may have omitted the article to assimilate this text to 12:9.
3a μετα K 59 O 36 HF ¦ και μετα K 16 A 44 C 27 O 22 RP
Scribes may have added και as being stylistically preferable. There are multiple instances of A including και at the beginning of a clause when K omits it. (See also 4:2, 4:4, 11:13, 13:4, and 13:18.)
3b λυθηναι αυτον K 67 O 35 HF ¦ αυτον λυθηναι K 10 A 43 C 27 O 25 RP
There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. Consequently, there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
5 και οι λοιποι των νεκρων ουκ εζησαν αχρι τελεσθη τα χιλια ετη K 16 A 20 C 26 O 12 HF RP ¦ {other variations} K 3 A 24 C 1 O 25 ¦ — K 59 A 1 O 16
Although this could be a marginal note that got included in the main text, it seems more likely that this text was unintentionally omitted due to homeoteleuton since K has a penchant for such omissions.
6 μετ αυτου K 20 A 43 C 27 O 49 HF RP ¦ μετα ταυτα K 55 O 5
The two phrases are very similar, and one could easily be mistaken for the other. The argument could be made that μετ αυτου is an assimilation to 20:4, which states that those who participate in the first resurrection will reign with Christ. Indeed, in 5:10 the author is comfortable speaking about their future reign without explicitly mentioning Christ as the one they will reign with. However, μετα ταυτα is likely just a corruption of μετ αυτου since it has very little support outside of K and is not even fully supported by K. Furthermore, if μετα ταυτα were original, we might expect to see it before βασιλευσουσι. But μετ αυτου is very natural coming after βασιλευσουσι.
7 μετα K 80 A 1 O 15 HF ¦ οταν τελεσθη K 9 A 25 C 27 O 36 RP ¦ οτε ετελεσθησαν A 11 O 2
Scribes likely changed μετα to οταν τελεσθη to assimilate this text to 20:5.
8a αυτων K 61 A 3 O 37 HF ¦ — K 15 A 42 C 27 O 19 RP
Scribes likely removed αυτων as being redundant due to the presence of ων before ο αριθμος.
8b ως η K 34 A 33 C 27 O 31 HF RP ¦ ωσει K 41 A 12 O 25
This is a reference to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 10:22, which reads ως η. The reading ωσει is likely the result of itacism.
9 εκυκλευσαν K 50 A 3 C 26 O 11 HF ¦ εκυκλωσαν K 23 A 41 C 1 O 42 RP
There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. The two verbs are similar in form and virtually identical in meaning. Consequently there is no compelling reason to depart from the majority K reading.
12 τους μεγαλους και τους μικρους εστωτας K 4 A 42 C 27 O 39 HF RP ¦ εστωτας K 53 A 2 O 5 ¦ εστωτας τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους K 11 O 5
The omission of τους μεγαλους και τους μικρους is likely due to homeoteleuton.
12 ηνοιξαν K 53 O 6 HF ¦ ηνοιχθησαν K 12 A 12 O 21 ¦ ηνεωχθησαν K 3 A 26 O 14 RP ¦ ανεωχθησαν A 2 C 27 O 6
Scribes may have found the active form ηνοιξαν to be a bit awkward, as the subject of the verb is not entirely clear. Consequently, scribes likely changed ηνοιξαν to a passive verb to match the passive that appears later in the sentence with the subject βιβλιον. Scribes were not unified, however, in the exact form of the passive verb they chose. Consequently, ηνοιξαν is to be preferred.
13 αυτου K 46 A 4 O 16 HF ¦ αυτων K 26 A 40 C 25 O 37 RP
Scribes likely changed αυτου to αυτων to assimilate the text to the prior verse.
Chapter 21
3 μετ αυτων εσται K 71 A 2 O 34 HF ¦ εσται μετ αυτων K 9 A 43 C 33 O 31 RP
There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. Consequently, there is no compelling reason to depart from K.
4a απ αυτων K 63 A 1 O 6 HF ¦ — K 13 A 27 C 33 O 44 RP
Scribes likely removed απ αυτων as being redundant given the presence of απο των οφθαλμων αυτων later in the verse.
4b απηλθεν K 66 A 3 O 28 HF ¦ απηλθον K 10 A 45 C 32 O 35 RP
Plural neuter subjects generally take singular verbs. The argument could be made that K scribes changed the plural verb to a singular form, but there is not much evidence for such alterations in K when compared to A. A appears to make a similar adjustment in 9:20, changing a singular verb with a plural neuter subject to a plural verb.
5a και K 27 A 44 C 25 O 53 HF RP ¦ — K 48 O 1
While A tends to include και at the beginning of clauses when K omits it, in this case the external evidence outweighs any internal considerations.
5 λεγει K 53 O 22 HF ¦ λεγει μοι K 21 A 44 C 26 O 28 RP
Scribes likely added μοι to assimilate this text to verse 6.
5b πιστοι και αληθινοι του θεου εισι K 64 O 17 HF ¦ αληθινοι και πιστοι εισι K 2 A 44 C 26 O 12 RP ¦ πιστοι και αληθινοι εισι O 22 ¦ αληθινοι και πιστοι εισι του θεου K 8 O 4
Scribes likely omitted του θεου to assimilate the text to 22:6. While the argument could be made that K scribes changed αληθινοι και πιστοι to πιστοι και αληθινοι to match 22:6, there is not much evidence for such alterations in K when compared to A. Furthermore, the manuscripts without a family classification favor the word order in K, giving further evidence that K is not a scribal alteration.
6a και η αρχη και το K 58 A 8 O 2 HF ¦ η αρχη και το K 8 A 25 O 47 RP ¦ αρχη και K 14 A 14 C 33 O 17
The reading η αρχη και το is likely a scribal change to assimilate the text to 22:13. The reading αρχη και is likely a scribal change to assimilate the text to the A reading in 1:8.
6b αυτω K 76 O 11 HF ¦ — K 4 A 47 C 33 O 57 RP
Scribes likely removed αυτω as being redundant given the presence of τω διψωντι earlier in the verse.
7 δωσω αυτω K 67 O 17 HF ¦ κληρονομησει K 4 A 30 C 26 O 37 RP
The shift from ο νικων to δωσω is quite abrupt and awkward, which likely prompted scribes to change the text to have a verb matching the nominative ο νικων. However, the author has similar constructions in 2:26, 3:12, and 3:21.
10a αγιαν K 63 C 1 O 34 HF ¦ μεγαλην και αγιαν K 8 A 40 C 19 ¦ μεγαλην την αγιαν K 2 A 4 C 25 O 3 RP
While the argument could be made that the K scribes assimilated this text to 11:2, 21:2, and 22:19, the K scribes generally avoid assimilating to other texts in Revelation. It seems more likely that A scribes and C scribes added μεγαλην to assimilate this text to 11:8, 14:8, 16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 18:16, 18:18, 18:19, and 18:21. But in those cases the word μεγας refers to Babylon not to Jerusalem, which here is described as αγιος in contradistinction to Babylon. With the exception of 11:8, Jerusalem is nowhere else referred to as πολις μεγας. And in 11:8, there is a negative connotation, linking the city to Sodom and Egypt.
10b εκ K 64 O 17 HF ¦ απο K 3 A 43 C 27 O 39 RP
Scribes likely changed εκ to απο to assimilate this text to 20:9 and/or 21:2.
11 κρυσταλλιζοντι K 44 A 14 C 6 O 29 HF RP ¦ κρυσταλιζοντι K 29 A 29 C 20 O 27
This verb was apparently invented by the author of Revelation. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one spelling over the other. The noun form is spelled with two lambdas.
12a δεκαδυο K 49 C 2 O 13 HF ¦ δωδεκα K 17 A 23 C 22 O 27 RP ¦ ιβ΄ K 7 A 10 C 3 O 11
Scribes likely changed δεκαδυο to δωδεκα to assimilate to the other two ocurrences of δωδεκα in this verse.
12b υιων K 54 A 3 C 1 O 31 HF ¦ των υιων K 5 A 18 C 25 O 11 RP ¦ του K 9 A 22 C 1 O 9
The word των does not appear before υιων ισραηλ in a similar construction in 7:4. Scribes likely added των in this verse for stylistic purposes.
15 και το τειχος αυτης K 17 A 42 O 50 HF RP ¦ — K 62 A 4 C 33 O 14
This omission of και το τειχος αυτης is likely due to homeoteleuton.
16 δεκαδυο K 59 C 1 O 13 HF ¦ δωδεκα K 10 A 32 C 23 O 33 RP ¦ ιβ΄ K 3 A 11 C 3 O 7
Scribes likely changed δεκαδυο to δωδεκα to match the other occurrences of δωδεκα in this chapter.
17 και K 75 A 1 O 15 HF ¦ και εμετρησε K 4 A 39 C 33 O 41 RP
Scribes likely added εμετρησε to assimilate this text to the previous verse.
18 υαλω K 46 A 27 C 2 O 27 ¦ υελω K 28 A 17 C 25 O 26 HF RP
Scribes may have written υελω to conform to the spelling in verse 21. External evidence leans toward υαλω.
20a χρυσοπρασος K 37 A 40 C 26 O 47 HF RP ¦ χρυσοπασος K 26 O 1
External evidence strongly favors χρυσοπρασος, which is the standard spelling. A K scribe may have inadvertently dropped the letter rho after the letter pi.
20b αμεθυσος K 49 A 39 C 30 O 46 HF RP ¦ αμεθυστος K 30 A 4 O 16
These are two alternate spellings of the same word with no compelling internal evidence to prefer one over the other. However, the external evidence leans heavily toward αμεθυσος.
23 αυτη γαρ η K 64 C 1 O 16 HF ¦ αυτη η γαρ K 9 A 19 O 29 RP ¦ εν αυτη η γαρ K 3 A 6 C 26 O 6 ¦ αυτην η γαρ A 18 O 6
All of the readings except the first one pair αυτη[ν] with φαινωσιν, while the first reading pairs αυτη with η δοξα. Both options make good sense. Since A is split across two readings, the primary K reading is to be preferred.
24 αυτω δοξαν και την τιμην των εθνων K 41 C 1 O 5 ¦ αυτω δοξαν και τιμην των εθνων K 30 O 6 HF RP ¦ την δοξαν και την τιμην αυτων A 4 C 26 O 9 ¦ την δοξαν αυτων A 29 O 22
The A scribes and the C scribes likely removed the word αυτω because the referent is not clear from the immediate context. Although the argument could be made that K scribes changed αυτων to των εθνων to assimilate this text to verse 26, K scribes generally avoid assimilating to other texts in Revelation. If they were indeed doing so, they likely would have included την before δοξαν as in verse 26. Rather, the A scribes and C scribes likely changed των εθνων to αυτων to make it clear that the kings were bringing their own glory and honor to the city (not the glory and honor of other nations). The only difference between the two main K readings is the inclusion or omission of την before τιμην. Some scribes may have removed την to match the anarthrous δοξαν. If την was not present in the original, there would be no reason to add it.
26 ινα εισελθωσι K 70 A 9 C 1 O 13 HF ¦ — K 6 A 34 C 25 O 43 RP
Based on the prepositional phrase εις αυτην in this verse and in verse 24, some scribes may have understood that the kings had already entered the city, thus making ινα εισελθωσι a redundant statement that should be removed.
27 και ο ποιων K 58 A 2 O 25 HF ¦ και ποιουν K 15 A 29 C 32 O 27 RP ¦ και ποιων K 3 O 13 ¦ ποιουν A 10 O 2
Scribes likely changed the masculine to neuter to assimilate to the neuter adjective κοινον.
Chapter 22
1 καθαρον K 14 A 39 C 25 O 26 RP ¦ — K 61 C 1 O 27 HF
This omission of καθαρον is likely due to homeoteleuton.
2 αποδιδους εκαστον K 30 O 12 HF RP ¦ εκαστον αποδιδους K 2 A 17 C 25 O 8 ¦ εκαστον αποδιδουν K 7 A 22 O 23 ¦ αποδιδους εκαστος K 23 C 1 O 6 ¦ αποδιδουν εκαστον K 9 O 1
There is not a significant difference in meaning with respect to the word order. Thus, there is no compelling reason to depart from the word order we find in the two primary K readings. When comparing those two readings, it is clear that the first reading would be more likely to give rise to the second as scribes changed εκαστον to εκαστος to match the masculine gender of the participle.
3 λατρευσουσιν K 44 A 34 C 22 O 43 RP ¦ λατρευουσιν K 29 A 7 C 4 O 14 HF
The argument could be made that λατρευουσιν was changed to λατρευσουσιν to match the future tense of the preceding verses. However, it is also possible that scribes inadvertently omitted the first sigma in λατρευσουσιν. The external evidence leans heavily toward λατρευσουσιν.
5a εσται K 55 O 4 HF ¦ εσται εκει K 12 A 39 C 26 O 29 RP ¦ εσται ετι K 2 O 20
The inclusion of εκει is likely a scribal assimilation to 21:25. The inclusion of ετι is likely a scribal assimilation to the many other occurrences of ετι in the final two chapters (21:1,4; 22:3,11).
5b ου χρεια K 55 O 10 HF ¦ χρειαν ουκ εχουσι K 13 A 42 C 26 O 25 RP
Scribes likely changed ου χρεια to χρειαν ουκ εχουσι to bring the text into conformity with 21:23.
5c λυχνου και φωτος K 54 O 12 HF ¦ λυχνου και φωτος ηλιου K 5 A 22 C 26 O 15 RP ¦ φωτος λυχνου και φωτος ηλιου K 2 A 2 O 13 ¦ λυχνου και φως ηλιου K 5 A 10 O 2 ¦ φως λυχνου και φως ηλιου A 4 O 6
Scribes likely added ηλιου to bring the text into conformity with 21:23.
6 δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου K 44 A 31 C 26 O 53 ¦ — K 19 O 1
The omission of δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου is likely due to homeoteleuton.
8a οτε ειδον K 41 O 12 HF ¦ εβλεψα K 13 A 39 C 24 O 24 ¦ ειδον K 12 O 8 ¦ οτε ιδον K 5 O 4
The second reading appears to be an effort to assimilate to the word βλεπων earlier in the verse while also removing the redundant οτε. It seems unlikely that scribes would change εβλεψα to οτε ειδον if εβλεψα were original.
8b δεικνυοντος K 36 A 34 O 28 RP ¦ δεικνυντος K 32 A 5 C 25 O 22 HF
These are two alternate spellings of the same word. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one over the other. Consequently, δεικνυοντος is preferable due to the weight of the external evidence, particularly from A.
15 πας K 59 A 3 C 24 O 22 RP ¦ πας ο K 13 A 38 C 2 O 31 HF
It seems likely that scribes added the article for stylistic purposes, although it is interesting that most of the C scribes do not add it. There is no compelling reason to depart from K.
* : David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, vol. 52A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1997), clxii.