☰ APPENDIX E: TEXTUAL COMMENTARY FOR REVELATION
APPENDIX E
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 (𝔐K or K), Andreas (𝔐A or A), and Complutensian (𝔐C 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 roughly a dozen 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 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 texts. 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). But all AA manuscripts also appear to share a single, common ancestor subsequent to the manuscript as indicated by some omissions due to homeoteleuton. For example, in 5:3 K reads ουρανω ανω while A simply reads ουρανω, omitting the word ανω.
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 to 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 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 occasionally 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 we can say about their collective character. However, their overall weight can 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 vice versa. When K is unified in preferring the numeral, the numeral is written instead. Such variant units are not treated in the commentary below.
Chapter 1
11 φιλαδελφειαν K51 A24 C26 O37 HF RP ¦ φιλαδελφιαν K26 A23 C1 O27
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 K53 A8 O30 HF ¦ υιω K28 A39 C27 O35 RP
Scribes likely changed υιον to the more natural υιω. (See also 14:14.)
14 και ως K40 O11 HF ¦ ως K35 A3 O27 RP ¦ ωσει K3 A33 C27 O22 ¦ και ωσει A9 O2
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 K43 A21 C3 O20 ¦ επεσα K39 A26 C24 O44 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 K70 A5 C2 O14 HF ¦ κλεις K12 A41 C24 O50 RP
These are two alternate spellings of the same word. There is no compelling reason to depart from K.
Chapter 2
8 ος K18 A46 C27 O56 HF RP ¦ — K63 O7
The omission of ος is likely due to homeoteleuton.
10 ημερας K81 A2 O18 HF ¦ ημερων K2 A44 C27 O45 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 K88 O22 HF ¦ εν αις A49 C34 O37 RP
Scribes may have added εν as being stylistically preferable.
14 αλλα K75 A13 O12 HF ¦ αλλ K6 A34 C26 O48 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 K66 O21 HF ¦ των νικολαιτων K16 A47 C27 O41 RP
Scribes may have added the article to bring the text into conformity with 2:6.
18 θυατειροις K37 A21 C26 O38 HF RP ¦ θυατηροις K9 A23 C1 O8 ¦ θυατειρη K31 O5
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 K63 A6 O22 HF ¦ αλλ K19 A41 C27 O36 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 K17 A43 C27 O46 HF RP ¦ ανοιξω K66 O9
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 K46 A39 C21 O43 HF RP ¦ κεραμεικα K31 A5 C5 O11
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 K79 O18 HF ¦ οτι K4 A46 C27 O42 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 K46 A3 C23 O19 RP ¦ στηριξον K11 A30 C3 O25 ¦ τηρησον K27 A13 C1 O8 HF
Some scribes may have inadvertently dropped the initial sigma and subsequently changed ι to η. 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 K41 A1 O12 HF RP ¦ ημελλες αποβαλλειν K36 A9 O6 ¦ εμελλον αποθανειν K1 A17 O23 ¦ εμελλες αποβαλειν K1 A2 C26 O5 ¦ εμελλον αποθνησκειν K1 A13 C1 O2 ¦ μελλει αποθανειν K1 O3
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 K4 A35 C27 O45 HF RP ¦ — K80 A1 O14
The omission of και ηκουσας και τηρει is likely due to homeoarcton.
3b γνωση K68 O38 HF ¦ γνως K15 A45 C27 O22 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 K35 A40 C3 O42 HF RP ¦ ουτω[ς] K30 A6 C24 O19
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 K46 A27 C27 O30 HF RP ¦ φιλαδελφια K39 A18 O29
Manuscripts are nearly evenly split. However, 1:11 leans toward φιλαδελφεια.
12a απο K60 O29 HF ¦ εκ K24 A46 C27 O31 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 K72 A4 O24 ¦ ονομα μου K12 A42 C27 O37 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 K74 O32 HF ¦ ζηλωσον K3 A45 C26 O31 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. (See also 11:1.)
Chapter 4
2 ευθεως K77 O16 HF ¦ και ευθεως K7 A45 C27 O46 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 K62 O7 HF ¦ και κυκλοθεν K17 A44 C27 O48 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 K7 A48 C34 O48 RP ¦ — K75 A1 O30 HF
The omission of ζωον is likely due to homeoteleuton.
8a και K56 A31 C1 O24 ¦ και τα K36 A19 C33 O55 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) K32 A41 C2 O42 RP ¦ αγιος (9 times) K42 A3 C24 O17 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 references, 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 K42 A8 O18 HF RP ¦ προσευχων K34 O2 ¦ αι προσευχαι K6 A36 C27 O39
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 K50 A32 C31 O40 HF RP ¦ βασιλευουσιν K41 A19 C3 O28
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 K60 O23 HF ¦ του θρονου K20 A46 C27 O37 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 K71 C1 O16 HF ¦ φωνη μεγαλη K11 A46 C26 O44 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 K85 O10 HF ¦ αυτοις εκαστω K6 A29 C32 O55 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 K63 A7 O21 HF ¦ ελισσομενον K17 A6 C27 O31 RP ¦ ειλισσομενον K1 A22 O5 ¦ ειλισσομενος K3 A10 O4
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 K71 O20 HF ¦ του θρονου K11 A45 C27 O40 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 K75 O22 HF ¦ — K8 A45 C27 O37 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 is stylistically awkward. It seems more likely that scribes would either intentionally or unintentionally omit αυτου than add it.
14 επλυναν K31 A43 C27 O49 HF RP ¦ επλατυναν K52 A2 O11
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 K50 A22 C7 O27 RP ¦ δωσει K30 A22 C20 O31 HF
The word ινα is usually followed by a subjunctive. The reading δωσει is likely the result of itacism.
13 τους κατοικουντας K82 O26 HF ¦ τοις κατοικουσιν K2 A44 C26 O36 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 K4 A35 C26 O46 HF RP ¦ — K79 A7 O17
The omission of ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου is likely due to homeoteleuton.
11 αββαδων K26 A36 C12 O9 HF RP ¦ αβααδδων K20 O6 ¦ αββααδων K10 O11 ¦ αββααδδων K14 A1 O5 ¦ αββαδδων K2 A1 C11 O6 ¦ αβαδδων K2 C3 O10 ¦ αβααδων K4 A4 O7
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 K73 O23 HF ¦ λεγουσαν K7 A37 C26 O36 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 K6 A41 C27 O31 HF RP ¦ και χαλκα A4 O12 ¦ — K78 O17
The omission of και τα χαλκα is likely due to homeoarcton.
21 φαρμακων K66 O30 HF ¦ φαρμακειων K12 A44 C27 O31 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 K43 A30 C27 O38 HF ¦ ημελλον K40 A15 O23 RP
K prefers εδυνατο over ηδυνατο in 5:3, 7:9, 14:3, and 15:8, so εμελλον is preferable. The overall external evidence also leans toward εμελλον. (See also 3:2b.)
Chapter 11
1 εγειρε K48 A26 C2 O30 HF ¦ εγειραι K36 A15 C22 O26 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. (See also 3:19.)
4 εστωτες K63 O24 HF ¦ εστωσαι K19 A45 C25 O36 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 K80 O15 HF ¦ και εν K2 A46 C26 O47 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 K44 O10 HF ¦ λεγουσαι K39 A47 C26 O51 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 K68 O20 HF ¦ οι ενωπιον του θεου καθημενοι K3 A18 C26 O13 RP ¦ ενωπιον του θεου καθημενοι A27 O4
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 K50 A29 C25 O34 HF RP ¦ επεσαν K33 A18 C1 O27
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 K79 O15 HF ¦ ηνοιγη K4 A46 C26 O45 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 K71 A2 O18 HF ¦ και τις K10 A44 C27 O43 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 K71 A11 O24 HF ¦ αυτω K11 A36 C27 O37 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 K34 A47 C27 O43 HF RP ¦ ων ουτε K46 O5
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 K5 A23 C34 O43 RP ¦ δει αυτον K80 O5 HF ¦ αποκτεινει δει αυτον εν μαχαιρα A12 O2
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 δυο K9 A45 C27 O48 HF RP ¦ — K72 A1 O11
Whenever horns are mentioned in Revelation, the number of horns is stated explicitly as carrying symbolic meaning. The same would be true here in which the two horns represent the two beasts. Due to the penchant for omission in the K archetype and the weight of the external evidence, it is preferable to include δυο.
16a δωσωσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K44 O11 HF RP ¦ δωσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K6 C34 O5 ¦ δωσιν αυτοις χαραγμα A21 O15 ¦ δωσουσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K24 O4 ¦ δωσωσιν αυτοις χαραγμα K6 A10 O3 ¦ δωσουσιν αυτοις χαραγμα A7 O3
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 K63 O6 ¦ της χειρος K19 A46 C27 O46 HF RP
Scribes may have added the article for stylistic purposes. However, in 8:4 and 19:2 the author also uses an anarthrous χειρος followed by a possessive pronoun.
18 ο K73 O24 HF ¦ και ο K8 A37 C27 O35 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 K31 A44 C27 O56 HF RP ¦ ουδε εις K49A2 O5
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 K75 O20 HF ¦ αν K6 A46 C27 O39 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 K39 A35 C24 O48 HF ¦ ταυτης K38 O8 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 K51 A8 O11 HF ¦ υιω K26 A29 C27 O49 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 K63 O3 ¦ την νεφελην K22 A34 C33 O52 HF RP ¦ της νεφελης K4 A13 O17
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 K54 A7 O29 HF ¦ κραυγη K26 A41 C32 O25 RP ¦ φωνη K4 A1 O16
The omission of εν is likely due to homeoteleuton.
18b ηκμασεν η σταφυλη της γης K83 O12 HF ¦ ηκμασαν αι σταφυλαι αυτης A41 C32 O43 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 K72 O16 HF ¦ εβαλεν K10 A44 C27 O41 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 K2 A47 C27 O38 HF RP ¦ της εικονος και εκ του θηριου K75 O6
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 K57 A1 O27 HF ¦ — K26 A46 C27 O34 RP
The omission of τας is likely due to homeoteleuton.
3 δουλου K74 O47 ¦ του δουλου K7 A52 C33 O28 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 K41 A15 C26 O27 HF RP ¦ δοξασει K42 A32 C1 O33
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 K71 O26 HF ¦ παντα τα εθνη K12 A46 C27 O29 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 K72 O17 HF ¦ πληγας εκ του ναου K2 A44 C1 O38 RP ¦ πληγας εκ του ουρανου C26 O4 ¦ {εκ του ναου before oι εχοντες} K8
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 K70 O16 HF ¦ του καπνου K8 O1 ¦ καπνου K1 A44 C27 O44 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 K56 A1 O6 ¦ φωνης μεγαλης K25 A42 C27 O53 HF RP
Scribes likely changed the order to φωνης μεγαλης to bring the phrase into alignment with 11:12 and 21:3.
1b λεγουσης K80 O16 ¦ εκ του ναου λεγουσης K1 A39 C27 O40 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 K78 O18 HF ¦ ψυχη ζωσα K4 A45 C27 O34 RP ¦ ψυχη ζωης K1 O8
Scribes likely added ζωσα to bring the text into alignment with Genesis 1:24. Other scribes likely added ζωης to bring the text into alignment with Genesis 1:30.
5 ει ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος K20 A26 C27 O20 RP ¦ ει ο ων και ος ην οσιος K34 O1 ¦ ει ο ων και ο ην οσιος K17 O17 HF ¦ ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος K1 A10 O9 ¦ ει ο ων και ος ην ο οσιος K7
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 K66 O25 HF ¦ τεταρτος αγγελος K18 A46 C27 O36 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 K46 A16 C25 O20 HF RP ¦ εμασσωντο K32 A24 C1 O23
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 have a good level of support from A.
12 αυτου την φιαλην K53 O10 ¦ την φιαλην αυτου K27 A47 C27 O52 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 K73 A8 O5 HF ¦ αρμαγεδων K7 A26 C27 O44 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 K37 A18 O19 HF ¦ αυτης K41 A25 C27 O39 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 τῆς πληγῆς earlier in the verse.
Chapter 17
3a εν K23 A39 C27 O57 HF RP ¦ — K62 O2
The omission of εν could be due to homeoteleuton.
3b θηριον το K51 O6 HF ¦ θηριον K26 A47 C27 O53 RP ¦ το θηριον το K8
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 K73 O15 HF ¦ τα ακαθαρτα της πορνειας αυτης K6 A40 C27 O39 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 K73 O14 HF ¦ εκ του K9 A44 C26 O39 RP
Scribes likely added εκ to match the εκ found later in the verse.
8a την γην K70 A8 O18 HF ¦ επι της γης K12 A37 C27 O42 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 they case may be, there is no compelling reason to deviate from K.
8b το ονομα K69 O29 HF ¦ τα ονοματα K13 A45 C27 O30 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 K65 O21 HF ¦ το βιβλιον K13 A29 C27 O32 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 K47 A12 C14 O40 HF RP ¦ επεσαν K36 A33 C13 O19
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 K69 O27 HF ¦ αυτος K14 A43 C27 O33 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 K62 O26 HF ¦ την εξουσιαν K21 A45 C27 O34 RP
Scribes likely added the article to match the article preceding δυναμιν.
18 επι K52 O7 HF ¦ — K30 A46 C27 O51 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 K62 A6 O29 ¦ πεπωκε A15 C29 O13 ¦ πεπωκασι K18 O11 ¦ πεποτικε A13 C3 O3
Due to 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 readings πεπωκε and πεποτικε likely stem from πεπωκασι.
5 αυτης K56 A1 C26 O11 ¦ αυτοις K7 O1 ¦ — K19 A45 C1 O49
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 K67 O2 ¦ αυτη διπλα K13 A42 C34 O41
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 K62 A5 O23 ¦ — K20 A39 C27 O35
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 K14 A25 C34 O38 ¦ οτι καθως K51 ¦ οτι ειμι καθως K8 ¦ καθημαι A20 O14
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 K70 O16 ¦ και πενθος K10 A46 C27 O43
Scribes likely added και for stylistic purposes.
13a κιναμωμον K4 A31 C25 O19 ¦ κιναμωμου K34 A2 O20 ¦ κινναμωμου K38 A2 O9 ¦ κινναμωμον K1 A11 C2 O11
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 K3 A37 C34 O46 ¦ ελαιον K70 A2 O9 ¦ ελαιον και οινον K12 O6
The omission is likely due either to homeoteleuton (οινον και) or homeoarcton (και οινον).
15 και K62 O9 ¦ — K21 A45 C27 O53
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.
16a λεγοντες K48 A3 O13 ¦ και λεγοντες K28 A28 C27 O39 ¦ — K1 A14 O8
See the explanation in the previous variant unit.
16b ουαι K14 A43 C26 O39 ¦ — K68 A2 C1 O15
The omission of ουαι is likely due to homeoteleuton and/or homeoarcton.
16c βυσσον K63 A6 O13 ¦ βυσσινον K18 A39 C27 O48
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 K21 A42 C26 O45 ¦ οι K57 C1 O6 ¦ οτι K2 A3 O8
The omission of οτι is likely due to homeoteleuton.
Chapter 19
4a επεσον K52 A23 C7 O38 ¦ επεσαν K28 A21 C20 O13
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 K66 A3 O33 ¦ του θρονου K15 A37 C27 O36
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 K52 A33 C25 O38 ¦ τον K29 A11 C2 O22
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 K40 A9 C19 O39 ¦ επεσα K41 A34 C14 O29
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 K65 A3 C1 O27 ¦ καλειται K15 A41 C26 O43
Scribes may have changed κεκληται to καλειται to assimilate this text to 11:8.
14 τα K48 A7 C25 O23 ¦ — K26 A31 C2 O35
The omission of τα is likely due to homeoteleuton.
17a εν K54 A4 O17 ¦ — K26 A41 C27 O43
The omission of εν is likely due to homeoteleuton.
17b το δειπνον το μεγα του K40 A6 C24 O23 ¦ τον δειπνον τον μεγαν του K31 A1 C1 O24 ¦ το δειπνον του μεγαλου A26 C1 O7 ¦ τον δειπνον του μεγαλου A10 O1
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 K53 A2 C1 O17 ¦ — K26 A43 C26 O43
Scribes may have omitted τον to assimilate the text to 12:17.
Chapter 20
2 ο K42 A12 C27 O32 ¦ — K36 A32 O26
Scribes may have omitted the article to assimilate this text to 12:9.
3a μετα K59 O36 ¦ και μετα K16 A44 C27 O22
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 K67 O35 ¦ αυτον λυθηναι K10 A43 C27 O25
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 K16 A20 C26 O12 ¦ {other variations} K3 A24 C1 O25 ¦ — K59 A1 O16
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 K20 A43 C27 O49 ¦ μετα ταυτα K55 O5
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 K80 A1 O15 ¦ οταν τελεσθη K9 A25 C27 O36 ¦ οτε ετελεσθησαν A11 O2
Scribes likely changed μετα to οταν τελεσθη to assimilate this text to 20:5.
8a αυτων K61 A3 O37 ¦ — K15 A42 C27 O19
Scribes likely removed αυτων as being redundant due to the presence of ων before ο αριθμος.
8b ως η K34 A33 C27 O31 ¦ ωσει K41 A12 O25
This is a reference to Isaiah 10:22, which reads ως η. The reading ωσει is likely the result of itacism.
9 εκυκλευσαν K50 A3 C26 O11 ¦ εκυκλωσαν K23 A41 C1 O42
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 K4 A42 C27 O39 ¦ εστωτας K53 A2 O5 ¦ εστωτας τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους K11 O5
The omission of τους μεγαλους και τους μικρους is likely due to homeoteleuton.
12 ηνοιξαν K53 O6 ¦ ηνοιχθησαν K12 A12 O21 ¦ ηνεωχθησαν K3 A26 O14 ¦ ανεωχθησαν A2 C27 O6
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 K46 A4 O16 ¦ αυτων K26 A40 C25 O37
Scribes likely changed αυτου to αυτων to assimilate the text to the prior verse.
Chapter 21
3 μετ αυτων εσται K71 A2 O34 ¦ εσται μετ αυτων K9 A43 C33 O31
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 K63 A1 O6 ¦ — K13 A27 C33 O44
Scribes likely removed απ αυτων as being redundant given the presence of ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν later in the verse.
4b απηλθεν K66 A3 O28 ¦ απηλθον K10 A45 C32 O35
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.
5a και K27 A44 C25 O53 ¦ — K48 O1
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 K53 O22 ¦ λεγει μοι K21 A44 C26 O28
The phrase λεγει μοι appears nine times in Revelation. Scribes may have added μοι in this verse to assimilate to those other texts, particularly 19:9.
5b πιστοι και αληθινοι του θεου εισι K64 O17 ¦ αληθινοι και πιστοι εισι K2 A44 C26 O12 ¦ πιστοι και αληθινοι εισι O22 ¦ αληθινοι και πιστοι εισι του θεου K8 O4
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 K58 A8 O2 ¦ η αρχη και το K8 A25 O47 ¦ αρχη και K14 A14 C33 O17
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 K76 O11 ¦ — K4 A47 C33 O57
Scribes likely removed αυτω as being redundant given the presence of τω διψωντι earlier in the verse.
7 δωσω αυτω K67 O17 ¦ κληρονομησει K4 A30 C26 O37
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.
10a αγιαν K63 C1 O34 ¦ μεγαλην και αγιαν K8 A40 C19 ¦ μεγαλην την αγιαν K2 A4 C25 O3
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. Nowhere else in the New Testament is Jerusalem referred to as πολις μεγας.
10b εκ K64 O17 ¦ απο K3 A43 C27 O39
Scribes likely changed εκ to απο to assimilate this text to 20:9 and/or 21:2.
11 κρυσταλλιζοντι K44 A14 C6 O29 ¦ κρυσταλιζοντι K29 A29 C20 O27
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 K49 C2 O13 ¦ δωδεκα K17 A23 C22 O27 ¦ ιβ΄ K7 A10 C3 O11
Scribes likely changed δεκαδυο to δωδεκα to assimilate to the other two ocurrences of δωδεκα in this verse.
12b υιων K54 A3 C1 O31 ¦ των υιων K5 A18 C25 O11 ¦ του K9 A22 C1 O9
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 K17 A42 O50 ¦ — K62 A4 C33 O14
This omission of και το τειχος αυτης is likely due to homeoteleuton.
16 δεκαδυο K59 C1 O13 ¦ δωδεκα K10 A32 C23 O33 ¦ ιβ΄ K3 A11 C3 O7
Scribes likely changed δεκαδυο to δωδεκα to match the other occurrences of δωδεκα in this chapter.
17 και K75 A1 O15 ¦ και εμετρησε K4 A39 C33 O41
Scribes likely added εμετρησε to assimilate this text to the previous verse.
18 υαλω K46 A27 C2 O27 ¦ υελω K28 A17 C25 O26
Scribes may have written υελω to conform to the spelling in verse 21. External evidence leans toward υαλω.
20a χρυσοπρασος K37 A40 C26 O47 ¦ χρυσοπασος K26 O1
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 K49 A39 C30 O46 ¦ αμεθυστος K30 A4 O16
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 K64 C1 O16 ¦ αυτη η γαρ K9 A19 O29 ¦ εν αυτη η γαρ K3 A6 C26 o06 ¦ αυτην η γαρ A18 O6
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 K41 C1 O5 ¦ αυτω δοξαν και τιμην των εθνων K30 O6 ¦ την δοξαν και την τιμην αυτων A4 C26 O9 ¦ την δοξαν αυτων A29 O22
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 K70 A9 C1 O13 ¦ — K6 A34 C25 O43
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 K58 A2 O25 ¦ και ποιουν K15 A29 C32 O27 ¦ και ποιων K3 O13 ¦ ποιουν A10 O2
Scribes likely changed the masculine to neuter to assimilate to the neuter adjective κοινον.
Chapter 22
1 καθαρον K14 A39 C25 O26 ¦ — K61 C1 O27
This omission of καθαρον is likely due to homeoteleuton.
2 αποδιδους εκαστον K30 O12 ¦ εκαστον αποδιδους K2 A17 C25 O8 ¦ εκαστον αποδιδουν K7 A22 O23 ¦ αποδιδους εκαστος K23 C1 O6 ¦ αποδιδουν εκαστον K9 O1
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 K44 A34 C22 O43 ¦ λατρευουσιν K29 A7 C4 O14
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 εκει K12 A39 C26 O29 ¦ ετι K2 O20 ¦ — K55 O4
This omission of εκει may be due to homeoteleuton, or it could simply be an inadvertent omission.
5b ου χρεια K55 O10 ¦ χρειαν ουκ εχουσι K13 A42 C26 O25
Scribes likely changed ου χρεια to χρειαν ουκ εχουσι to bring the text into conformity with 21:23.
5c λυχνου και φωτος K54 O12 ¦ λυχνου και φωτος ηλιου K5 A22 C26 O15 ¦ φωτος λυχνου και φωτος ηλιου K2 A2 O13 ¦ λυχνου και φως ηλιου K5 A10 O2 ¦ φως λυχνου και φως ηλιου A4 O6
Scribes likely added ηλιου to bring the text into conformity with 21:23.
8a οτε ειδον K41 O12 ¦ εβλεψα K13 A39 C24 O24 ¦ ειδον K12 O8 ¦ οτε ιδον K5 O4
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 K36 A34 O28 ¦ δεικνυντος K32 A5 C25 O22
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 K59 A3 C24 O22 ¦ πας ο K13 A38 C2 O31
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.
Chapter 3
1 και K79 O18 ¦ οτι K4 A46 C27 O42
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 K46 A3 C23 O19 ¦ στηριξον K11 A30 C3 O25 ¦ τηρησον K27 A13 C1 O8
Some scribes may have inadvertently dropped the initial sigma and subsequently changed ι to η. 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 K41 A1 O12 ¦ ημελλες αποβαλλειν K36 A9 O6 ¦ εμελλον αποθανειν K1 A17 O23 ¦ εμελλες αποβαλειν K1 A2 C26 O5 ¦ εμελλον αποθνησκειν K1 A13 C1 O2 ¦ μελλει αποθανειν K1 O3
A is divided between three readings and is not of much help here. 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 K4 A35 C27 O45 ¦ — K80 A1 O14
The omission of και ηκουσας και τηρει is likely due to homeoarcton.
3b γνωση K68 O38 ¦ γνως K15 A45 C27 O22
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 K35 A40 C3 O42 ¦ ουτω[ς] K30 A6 C24 O19
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 K46 A27 C27 O30 ¦ φιλαδελφια K39 A18 O29
Manuscripts are nearly evenly split. However, 1:11 leans toward φιλαδελφεια.
12a απο K60 O29 ¦ εκ K24 A46 C27 O31
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 K72 A4 O24 ¦ ονομα μου K12 A42 C27 O37
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 K74 O32 ¦ ζηλωσον K3 A45 C26 O31
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. (See also 11:1.)
Chapter 4
2 ευθεως K77 O16 ¦ και ευθεως K7 A45 C27 O46
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 K62 O7 ¦ και κυκλοθεν K17 A44 C27 O48
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 K7 A48 C34 O48 ¦ — K75 A1 O30
The omission of ζωον is likely due to homeoteleuton.
8a και K56 A31 C1 O24 ¦ και τα K36 A19 C33 O55
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) K32 A41 C2 O42 ¦ αγιος (9 times) K42 A3 C24 O17
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 references, 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 K42 A8 O18 ¦ προσευχων K34 O2 ¦ αι προσευχαι K6 A36 C27 O39
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 K50 A32 C31 O40 ¦ βασιλευουσιν K41 A19 C3 O28
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 K60 O23 ¦ του θρονου K20 A46 C27 O37
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 K71 C1 O16 ¦ φωνη μεγαλη K11 A46 C26 O44
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 K85 O10 ¦ αυτοις εκαστω K6 A29 C32 O55
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 K63 A7 O21 ¦ ελισσομενον K17 A6 C27 O31 ¦ ειλισσομενον K1 A22 O5 ¦ ειλισσομενος K3 A10 O4
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 K71 O20 ¦ του θρονου K11 A45 C27 O40
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 K75 O22 ¦ — K8 A45 C27 O37
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 is stylistically awkward. It seems more likely that scribes would either intentionally or unintentionally omit αυτου than add it.
14 επλυναν K31 A43 C27 O49 ¦ επλατυναν K52 A2 O11
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 K50 A22 C7 O27 ¦ δωσει K30 A22 C20 O31
The word ινα is usually followed by a subjunctive. The reading δωσει is likely the result of itacism.
13 τους κατοικουντας K82 O26 ¦ τοις κατοικουσιν K2 A44 C26 O36
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 K4 A35 C26 O46 ¦ — K79 A7 O17
The omission of ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου is likely due to homeoteleuton.
11 αββαδων K26 A36 C12 O9 ¦ αβααδδων K20 O6 ¦ αββααδων K10 O11 ¦ αββααδδων K14 A1 O5 ¦ αββαδδων K2 A1 C11 O6 ¦ αβαδδων K2 C3 O10 ¦ αβααδων K4 A4 O7
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 K73 O23 ¦ λεγουσαν K7 A37 C26 O36
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 K6 A41 C27 O31 ¦ και χαλκα A4 O12 ¦ — K78 O17
The omission of και τα χαλκα is likely due to homeoarcton.
21 φαρμακων K66 O30 ¦ φαρμακειων K12 A44 C27 O31
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 K43 A30 C27 O38 ¦ ημελλον K40 A15 O23
K prefers εδυνατο over ηδυνατο in 5:3, 7:9, 14:3, and 15:8, so εμελλον is preferable. The overall external evidence also leans toward εμελλον. (See also 3:2b.)
Chapter 11
1 εγειρε K48 A26 C2 O30 ¦ εγειραι K36 A15 C22 O26
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. (See also 3:19.)
4 εστωτες K63 O24 ¦ εστωσαι K19 A45 C25 O36
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 K80 O15 ¦ και εν K2 A46 C26 O47
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 K44 O10 ¦ λεγουσαι K39 A47 C26 O51
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 K68 O20 ¦ οι ενωπιον του θεου καθημενοι K3 A18 C26 O13 ¦ ενωπιον του θεου καθημενοι A27 O4
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 K50 A29 C25 O34 ¦ επεσαν K33 A18 C1 O27
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 K79 O15 ¦ ηνοιγη K4 A46 C26 O45
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 12
No variant units are treated in chapter 12.
Chapter 13
4 τις K71 A2 O18 ¦ και τις K10 A44 C27 O43
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 K71 A11 O24 ¦ αυτω K11 A36 C27 O37
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 K34 A47 C27 O43 ¦ ων ουτε K46 O5
The word following this variant 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 K5 A23 C34 O43 ¦ δει αυτον K80 O5 ¦ αποκτεινει δει αυτον εν μαχαιρα A12 O2
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 K72 A1 O11 ¦ δυο K9 A45 C27 O48
In every other verse where horns are mentioned in Revelation, the number of horns is stated explicitly as carrying symbolic meaning. In this case, however, the horns are being compared the the horns of another animal (a lamb), seemingly reducing the emphasis on the number (although the number two could be symbolical of the second beast). It seems likely that A scribes added δυο to conform this text to the other texts in Revelation that always mention the number of horns.
16a δωσωσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K44 O11 ¦ δωσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K6 C34 O5 ¦ δωσιν αυτοις χαραγμα A21 O15 ¦ δωσουσιν αυτοις χαραγματα K24 O4 ¦ δωσωσιν αυτοις χαραγμα K6 A10 O3 ¦ δωσουσιν αυτοις χαραγμα A7 O3
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 K63 O6 ¦ της χειρος K19 A46 C27 O46
Scribes may have added the article for stylistic purposes. However, in 8:4 and 19:2 the author also uses an anarthrous χειρος followed by a possessive pronoun.
18 ο K73 O24 ¦ και ο K8 A37 C27 O35
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 K31 A44 C27 O56 ¦ ουδε εις K49A2 O5
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 K75 O20 ¦ αν K6 A46 C27 O39
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 K39 A35 C24 O48 ¦ ταυτης K38 O8
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 K51 A8 O11 ¦ υιω K26 A29 C27 O49
It seems more likely that scribes would change υιον to the more natural υιω than vice versa. (See also 1:13.)
16 τη νεφελη K63 O3 ¦ την νεφελην K22 A34 C33 O52 ¦ της νεφελης K4 A13 O17
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 K54 A7 O29 ¦ κραυγη K26 A41 C32 O25 ¦ φωνη K4 A1 O16
The omission of εν is likely due to homeoteleuton.
18b ηκμασεν η σταφυλη της γης K83 O12 ¦ ηκμασαν αι σταφυλαι αυτης A41 C32 O43
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 K72 O16 ¦ εβαλεν K10 A44 C27 O41
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 K2 A47 C27 O38 ¦ της εικονος και εκ του θηριου K75 O6
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 K57 A1 O27 ¦ — K26 A46 C27 O34
The omission of τας is likely due to homeoteleuton.
3 δουλου K74 O47 ¦ του δουλου K7 A52 C33 O28
Scribes may have added του before δουλου to bring the phrase into alignment with the phrase του αρνιου later in the verse.
4a δοξαση K41 A15 C26 O27 ¦ δοξασει K42 A32 C1 O33
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 K71 O26 ¦ παντα τα εθνη K12 A46 C27 O29
Scribes likely changed παντες to παντα τα εθνη to assimilate the text to 12:5, 14:8, 18:3, and 18:23.
6 πληγας K72 O17 ¦ πληγας εκ του ναου K2 A44 C1 O38 ¦ πληγας εκ του ουρανου C26 O4 ¦ {εκ του ναου before oι εχοντες} K8
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 K70 O16 ¦ του καπνου K8 O1 ¦ καπνου K1 A44 C27 O44
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 K56 A1 O6 ¦ φωνης μεγαλης K25 A42 C27 O53
Scribes likely changed the order to φωνης μεγαλης to bring the phrase into alignment with 11:12 and 21:3.
1b λεγουσης K80 O16 ¦ εκ του ναου λεγουσης K1 A39 C27 O40
This may be an assimilation to 14:17. (See also 15:6.)
3 ψυχη K78 O18 ¦ ψυχη ζωσα K4 A45 C27 O34 ¦ ψυχη ζωης K1 O8
Scribes likely added ζωσα to bring the text into alignment with Genesis 1:24. Other scribes likely added ζωης to bring the text into alignment with Genesis 1:30.
5 ει ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος K20 A26 C27 O20 ¦ ει ο ων και ος ην οσιος K34 O1 ¦ ει ο ων και ο ην οσιος K17 O17 ¦ ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος K1 A10 O9 ¦ ει ο ων και ος ην ο οσιος K7
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 K66 O25 ¦ τεταρτος αγγελος K18 A46 C27 O36
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 K46 A16 C25 O20 ¦ εμασσωντο K32 A24 C1 O23
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 have a good level of support from A.
12 αυτου την φιαλην K53 O10 ¦ την φιαλην αυτου K27 A47 C27 O52
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 K73 A8 O5 ¦ αρμαγεδων K7 A26 C27 O44
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 K37 A18 O19 ¦ αυτης K41 A25 C27 O39
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 τῆς πληγῆς earlier in the verse.
Chapter 17
3a εν K23 A39 C27 O57 ¦ — K62 O2
The omission of εν could be due to homeoteleuton.
3b θηριον το K51 O6 ¦ θηριον K26 A47 C27 O53 ¦ το θηριον το K8
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 K73 O15 ¦ τα ακαθαρτα της πορνειας αυτης K6 A40 C27 O39
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 K73 O14 ¦ εκ του K9 A44 C26 O39
Scribes likely added εκ to match the εκ found later in the verse.
8a την γην K70 A8 O18 ¦ επι της γης K12 A37 C27 O42
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 they case may be, there is no compelling reason to deviate from K.
8b το ονομα K69 O29 ¦ τα ονοματα K13 A45 C27 O30
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 K65 O21 ¦ το βιβλιον K13 A29 C27 O32
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 K47 A12 C14 O40 ¦ επεσαν K36 A33 C13 O19
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 K69 O27 ¦ αυτος K14 A43 C27 O33
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 K62 O26 ¦ την εξουσιαν K21 A45 C27 O34
Scribes likely added the article to match the article preceding δυναμιν.
18 επι K52 O7 ¦ — K30 A46 C27 O51
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 K62 A6 O29 RP ¦ πεπωκε A15 C29 O13 ¦ πεπωκασι K18 O11 HF ¦ πεποτικε A13 C3 O3
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 K56 A1 C26 O11 HF ¦ αυτοις K7 O1 ¦ — K19 A45 C1 O49 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 K67 O2 HF ¦ αυτη διπλα K13 A42 C34 O41 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 K62 A5 O23 HF ¦ — K20 A39 C27 O35 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 K14 A25 C34 O38 HF RP ¦ οτι καθως K51 ¦ οτι ειμι καθως K8 ¦ καθημαι A20 O14
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 K70 O16 HF ¦ και πενθος K10 A46 C27 O43 RP
Scribes likely added και for stylistic purposes.
13a κιναμωμον K4 A31 C25 O19 HF RP ¦ κιναμωμου K34 A2 O20 ¦ κινναμωμου K38 A2 O9 ¦ κινναμωμον K1 A11 C2 O11
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 K3 A37 C34 O46 HF RP ¦ ελαιον K70 A2 O9 ¦ ελαιον και οινον K12 O6
The omission is likely due either to homeoteleuton (οινον και) or homeoarcton (και οινον).
15 και K62 O9 HF ¦ — K21 A45 C27 O53 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.
16a λεγοντες K48 A3 O13 ¦ και λεγοντες K28 A28 C27 O39 HF RP ¦ — K1 A14 O8
See the explanation in the previous variant unit.
16b ουαι K14 A43 C26 O39 HF RP ¦ — K68 A2 C1 O15
The omission of ουαι is likely due to homeoteleuton and/or homeoarcton.
16c βυσσον K63 A6 O13 HF ¦ βυσσινον K18 A39 C27 O48 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 K21 A42 C26 O45 RP ¦ οι K57 C1 O6 HF ¦ οτι K2 A3 O8
The omission of οτι is likely due to homeoteleuton.
Chapter 19
4a επεσον K52 A23 C7 O38 HF RP ¦ επεσαν K28 A21 C20 O13
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 K66 A3 O33 HF ¦ του θρονου K15 A37 C27 O36 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 K52 A33 C25 O38 RP ¦ τον K29 A11 C2 O22 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 K40 A9 C19 O39 ¦ επεσα K41 A34 C14 O29 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 K65 A3 C1 O27 HF ¦ καλειται K15 A41 C26 O43 RP
Scribes may have changed κεκληται to καλειται to assimilate this text to 11:8.
14 τα K48 A7 C25 O23 HF RP ¦ — K26 A31 C2 O35
The omission of τα is likely due to homeoteleuton.
17a εν K54 A4 O17 HF ¦ — K26 A41 C27 O43 RP
The omission of εν is likely due to homeoteleuton.
17b το δειπνον το μεγα του K40 A6 C24 O23 RP ¦ τον δειπνον τον μεγαν του K31 A1 C1 O24 HF ¦ το δειπνον του μεγαλου A26 C1 O7 ¦ τον δειπνον του μεγαλου A10 O1
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 K53 A2 C1 O17 HF ¦ — K26 A43 C26 O43 RP
Scribes may have omitted τον to assimilate the text to 12:17.
Chapter 20
2 ο K42 A12 C27 O32 HF RP ¦ — K36 A32 O26
Scribes may have omitted the article to assimilate this text to 12:9.
3a μετα K59 O36 HF ¦ και μετα K16 A44 C27 O22 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 K67 O35 HF ¦ αυτον λυθηναι K10 A43 C27 O25 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 K16 A20 C26 O12 HF RP ¦ {other variations} K3 A24 C1 O25 ¦ — K59 A1 O16
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 K20 A43 C27 O49 HF RP ¦ μετα ταυτα K55 O5
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 K80 A1 O15 HF ¦ οταν τελεσθη K9 A25 C27 O36 RP ¦ οτε ετελεσθησαν A11 O2
Scribes likely changed μετα to οταν τελεσθη to assimilate this text to 20:5.
8a αυτων K61 A3 O37 HF ¦ — K15 A42 C27 O19 RP
Scribes likely removed αυτων as being redundant due to the presence of ων before ο αριθμος.
8b ως η K34 A33 C27 O31 HF RP ¦ ωσει K41 A12 O25
This is a reference to Isaiah 10:22, which reads ως η. The reading ωσει is likely the result of itacism.
9 εκυκλευσαν K50 A3 C26 O11 HF ¦ εκυκλωσαν K23 A41 C1 O42 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 K4 A42 C27 O39 HF RP ¦ εστωτας K53 A2 O5 ¦ εστωτας τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους K11 O5
The omission of τους μεγαλους και τους μικρους is likely due to homeoteleuton.
12 ηνοιξαν K53 O6 HF ¦ ηνοιχθησαν K12 A12 O21 ¦ ηνεωχθησαν K3 A26 O14 RP ¦ ανεωχθησαν A2 C27 O6
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 K46 A4 O16 HF ¦ αυτων K26 A40 C25 O37 RP
Scribes likely changed αυτου to αυτων to assimilate the text to the prior verse.
Chapter 21
3 μετ αυτων εσται K71 A2 O34 HF ¦ εσται μετ αυτων K9 A43 C33 O31 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 K63 A1 O6 HF ¦ — K13 A27 C33 O44 RP
Scribes likely removed απ αυτων as being redundant given the presence of ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν later in the verse.
4b απηλθεν K66 A3 O28 HF ¦ απηλθον K10 A45 C32 O35 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 K27 A44 C25 O53 HF RP ¦ — K48 O1
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 K53 O22 HF ¦ λεγει μοι K21 A44 C26 O28 RP
Scribes likely added μοι to assimilate this text to verse 6.
5b πιστοι και αληθινοι του θεου εισι K64 O17 HF ¦ αληθινοι και πιστοι εισι K2 A44 C26 O12 RP ¦ πιστοι και αληθινοι εισι O22 ¦ αληθινοι και πιστοι εισι του θεου K8 O4
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 K58 A8 O2 HF ¦ η αρχη και το K8 A25 O47 RP ¦ αρχη και K14 A14 C33 O17
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 K76 O11 HF ¦ — K4 A47 C33 O57 RP
Scribes likely removed αυτω as being redundant given the presence of τω διψωντι earlier in the verse.
7 δωσω αυτω K67 O17 HF ¦ κληρονομησει K4 A30 C26 O37 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 K63 C1 O34 HF ¦ μεγαλην και αγιαν K8 A40 C19 ¦ μεγαλην την αγιαν K2 A4 C25 O3 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. In 11:8, there is a negative connotation, linking the city to Sodom and Egypt.
10b εκ K64 O17 HF ¦ απο K3 A43 C27 O39 RP
Scribes likely changed εκ to απο to assimilate this text to 20:9 and/or 21:2.
11 κρυσταλλιζοντι K44 A14 C6 O29 HF RP ¦ κρυσταλιζοντι K29 A29 C20 O27
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 K49 C2 O13 HF ¦ δωδεκα K17 A23 C22 O27 RP ¦ ιβ΄ K7 A10 C3 O11
Scribes likely changed δεκαδυο to δωδεκα to assimilate to the other two ocurrences of δωδεκα in this verse.
12b υιων K54 A3 C1 O31 HF ¦ των υιων K5 A18 C25 O11 RP ¦ του K9 A22 C1 O9
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 K17 A42 O50 HF RP ¦ — K62 A4 C33 O14
This omission of και το τειχος αυτης is likely due to homeoteleuton.
16 δεκαδυο K59 C1 O13 HF ¦ δωδεκα K10 A32 C23 O33 RP ¦ ιβ΄ K3 A11 C3 O7
Scribes likely changed δεκαδυο to δωδεκα to match the other occurrences of δωδεκα in this chapter.
17 και K75 A1 O15 HF ¦ και εμετρησε K4 A39 C33 O41 RP
Scribes likely added εμετρησε to assimilate this text to the previous verse.
18 υαλω K46 A27 C2 O27 ¦ υελω K28 A17 C25 O26 HF RP
Scribes may have written υελω to conform to the spelling in verse 21. External evidence leans toward υαλω.
20a χρυσοπρασος K37 A40 C26 O47 HF RP ¦ χρυσοπασος K26 O1
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 K49 A39 C30 O46 HF RP ¦ αμεθυστος K30 A4 O16
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 K64 C1 O16 HF ¦ αυτη η γαρ K9 A19 O29 RP ¦ εν αυτη η γαρ K3 A6 C26 O6 ¦ αυτην η γαρ A18 O6
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 K41 C1 O5 ¦ αυτω δοξαν και τιμην των εθνων K30 O6 HF RP ¦ την δοξαν και την τιμην αυτων A4 C26 O9 ¦ την δοξαν αυτων A29 O22
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 K70 A9 C1 O13 HF ¦ — K6 A34 C25 O43 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 K58 A2 O25 HF ¦ και ποιουν K15 A29 C32 O27 RP ¦ και ποιων K3 O13 ¦ ποιουν A10 O2
Scribes likely changed the masculine to neuter to assimilate to the neuter adjective κοινον.
Chapter 22
1 καθαρον K14 A39 C25 O26 RP ¦ — K61 C1 O27 HF
This omission of καθαρον is likely due to homeoteleuton.
2 αποδιδους εκαστον K30 O12 HF RP ¦ εκαστον αποδιδους K2 A17 C25 O8 ¦ εκαστον αποδιδουν K7 A22 O23 ¦ αποδιδους εκαστος K23 C1 O6 ¦ αποδιδουν εκαστον K9 O1
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 K44 A34 C22 O43 RP ¦ λατρευουσιν K29 A7 C4 O14 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 εκει K12 A39 C26 O29 RP ¦ ετι K2 O20 ¦ — K55 O4 HF
This omission of εκει may be due to homeoteleuton, or it could simply be an inadvertent omission.
5b ου χρεια K55 O10 HF ¦ χρειαν ουκ εχουσι K13 A42 C26 O25 RP
Scribes likely changed ου χρεια to χρειαν ουκ εχουσι to bring the text into conformity with 21:23.
5c λυχνου και φωτος K54 O12 HF ¦ λυχνου και φωτος ηλιου K5 A22 C26 O15 RP ¦ φωτος λυχνου και φωτος ηλιου K2 A2 O13 ¦ λυχνου και φως ηλιου K5 A10 O2 ¦ φως λυχνου και φως ηλιου A4 O6
Scribes likely added ηλιου to bring the text into conformity with 21:23.
8a οτε ειδον K41 O12 HF ¦ εβλεψα K13 A39 C24 O24 ¦ ειδον K12 O8 ¦ οτε ιδον K5 O4
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 K36 A34 O28 RP ¦ δεικνυντος K32 A5 C25 O22 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 K59 A3 C24 O22 RP ¦ πας ο K13 A38 C2 O31 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), clviii.
☰