This appendix documents the rationale for two types of text-critical decisions in Revelation: choice of variants when 𝔐K is split and departures from Hodges and Farstad (HF) and/or Robinson and Pierpont (RP). When the main 𝔐K reading has at least twice as much support as any secondary reading, the external evidence outweighs any considerations of internal evidence. Internal evidence is often highly subjective and, consequently, not the most convincing. Nevertheless, when external evidence is closely divided, internal evidence is a necessary factor in the decision-making process. I present my considerations of internal evidence not to provide definitive answers but to present plausible suggestions.

1:11 φιλαδελφειαν 𝔐K-51 HF RP ¦ φιλαδελφιαν 𝔐K-26

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward φιλαδελφειαν.

Internal: Variants due to itacism are not uncommon in 𝔐K. There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other.

(See also 3:7.)

1:13 υιον 𝔐K-53 HF ¦ υιω 𝔐K-28 RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward υιον.

Internal: It seems more likely that scribes would change υιον to the more natural υιω than vice versa.

(See also 14:14.)

1:14 και ως 𝔐K-40 HF ¦ ως 𝔐K-36 RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between και ως and ως.

Internal: The omission of και is likely due to homeoteleuton, as the preceding word is λευκαι.

1:17 επεσον 𝔐K-43 ¦ επεσα 𝔐K-39 HF RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between επεσον and επεσα.

Internal: These are two alternate forms of the same word. In 22:8, επεσον is the clear reading of 𝔐K.

(See also 19:4 and 19:10.)

1:18 κλειδας 𝔐K-70 HF ¦ κλεις 𝔐K-12 RP

External: 𝔐K supports κλειδας.

Internal: These are two alternate spellings of the same word. Although the spelling in 3:7 and 20:1 would favor κλεις, this evidence does not outweigh the external evidence. Perhaps scribes would have assimilated the spelling here to the spelling in 3:7 and 20:1, but it is questionable whether scribes would have been concerned about matching minor spelling variations found later in the book.

2:8 εσχατος 𝔐K-63 ¦ εσχατος ος 𝔐K-18 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports εσχατος.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoteleuton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. It is possible that ος was added by scribes to bring the text into greater conformity with the introductions to the letters to the other churches, which contain appositives.

2:10 ημερας 𝔐K-81 HF ¦ ημερων 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports ημερας.

Internal: 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. While ημερων appears to be the harder reading, apparently it was not too difficult to be adopted by 𝔐C.

2:13 αις 𝔐K-88 HF ¦ εν αις 𝔐K-0 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of εν.

Internal: Scribes may have added εν as being stylistically preferable.

2:14 αλλα 𝔐K-75 HF ¦ αλλ 𝔐K-6 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports αλλα.

Internal: The longer form is used before a vowel in 2:4. Why not here also? It seems that scribes would be more likely to drop the final letter α before a vowel than to add it.

(See also 2:20.)

2:15 νικολαιτων 𝔐K-66 HF ¦ των νικολαιτων 𝔐K-16 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of των.

Internal: The article may have been added by scribes to bring the text into conformity with 2:6.

2:18 θυατειροις 𝔐K-37 HF RP ¦ θυατειρη 𝔐K-31

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between θυατειροις and θυατειρη.

Internal: The reading θυατειρη may be an attempt to match the singular number in the opening portions of the letters to the other churches.

2:20 αλλα 𝔐K-63 HF ¦ αλλ 𝔐K-19 RP

External: 𝔐K supports αλλα.

Internal: The longer form is used before a vowel in 2:4. Why not here also? It seems that scribes would be more likely to drop the final letter α before a vowel than to add it.

(See also 2:14.)

2:25 αν ηξω 𝔐K-17 HF RP ¦ ανοιξω 𝔐K-66

External: 𝔐K supports ανοιξω.

Internal: This appears to be the most difficult reading of the 𝔐K text of Revelation. Thre reading ανοιξω is likely the result of itacism (η → οι), perhaps even in the autograph. There is evidence for this type of itacism in the first century ad. Because uncials do not have spaces between words, scribes writing minuscules from uncial exemplars could have read this as ανοιξω rather than αν οιξω. The reading ανοιξω is hard to make sense of in context. If it was the original reading, scribes would have been tempted to changed it to αν ηξω to assimilate it to 2:5, 2:16, 3:3, and 3:11, which all speak of Jesus coming to the various churches. Furthermore, in its active form the verb ανοιξω is almost always transitive. However, in 3:7 it is used twice intransitively with the understood object being door. Given how strong the internal evidence is against ανοιξω as a difficult reading, it is truly remarkable that the vast majority of 𝔐K scribes retain the reading. Perhaps they did not find it as difficult as modern readers do today. Nevertheless, given that 𝔐K splits at times due to itacism, preference is given to αν ηξω.

2:27 κεραμικα 𝔐K-46 HF RP ¦ κεραμεικα 𝔐K-31

External: 𝔐K leans toward κεραμικα.

Internal: Itacism is common in Revelation and is generally not a deciding factor.

3:1 και [third] 𝔐K-79 HF ¦ οτι 𝔐K-4 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports και.

Internal: Both readings make sense. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other.

3:2 στηρισον 𝔐K-46 RP ¦ τηρησον 𝔐K-27 ¦ στηριξον 𝔐K-11 HF

External: 𝔐K leans toward στηρισον.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes would inadvertently drop the letter σ and that there would be interchange between the letters ι and η. The reading chosen by HF does not have enough support among the 𝔐K manuscripts to be given strong consideration.

3:2 εμελλες 𝔐K-43 HF RP ¦ ημελλες 𝔐K-37

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between εμελλες and ημελλες.

Internal: 𝔐K manuscripts prefer εδυνατο over ηδυνατο in 5:3, 7:9, 14:3, and 15:8.

(See also 10:4.)

3:3 ειληφας 𝔐K-80 ¦ ειληφας και ηκουσας και τηρει 𝔐K-4 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και ηκουσας και τηρει.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoarcton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. The longer reading is against the author's formula in 2:5. It is possible that it is a gloss reminiscent of 1:3.

3:3 γνωση 𝔐K-68 RP ¦ γνως 𝔐K-15 HF

External: 𝔐K supports γνωση.

Internal: The words ου μη generally anticipate the use of the subjunctive. It seems more likely that scribes would change the future indicative to an aorist subjunctive than vice versa.

3:5 ουτος 𝔐K-53 HF RP ¦ ουτω[ς] 𝔐K-30

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward ουτος.

Internal: Both variants make good sense, and scribes frequently used the letters ο and ω interchangeably. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other.

3:7 φιλαδελφεια 𝔐K-46 HF RP ¦ φιλαδελφια 𝔐K-39

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between φιλαδελφεια and φιλαδελφια.

Internal: 𝔐K leans heavily toward φιλαδελφεια in 1:11.

3:12 απο [first] 𝔐K-60 HF ¦ εκ 𝔐K-24 RP

External: 𝔐K supports απο.

Internal: The repetition of απο is the harder reading stylistically. It seems more likely that scribes would change απο to εκ than vice versa.

3:12 ονομα [third] 𝔐K-72 ¦ ονομα μου 𝔐K-12 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of μου.

Internal: 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.

3:19 ζηλευε 𝔐K-74 HF ¦ ζηλωσον 𝔐K-3 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports ζηλευε.

Internal: The use of the aorist might have been an attempt to bring the command into conformity with the command that follows. However, the author mixes present and aorist commands elsewhere, such as 2:5.

4:2 ευθεως 𝔐K-77 HF ¦ και ευθεως 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other, although scribes may have been tempted to add και as being stylistically preferable.

4:4 κυκλοθεν 𝔐K-62 HF ¦ και κυκλοθεν 𝔐K-17 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of και.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other, although scribes may have been tempted to add και as being stylistically preferable.

4:7 τεταρτον 𝔐K-75 HF ¦ τεταρτον ζωον 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of ζωον.

Internal: In chapter 16, the author does not consistently mention the noun αγγελος in the ordinal list. Thus, it would not be out of character for the author to omit ζωον here.

4:8 και [first] 𝔐K-56 ¦ και τα 𝔐K-36 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward the omission of τα.

Internal: It is possible that the article was added by scribes to more concrently identify the four living creatures in this verse as the same living creatures introduced in the prior verse. It seems more likely that scribes would add τα than omit it.

4:8 αγιος (9 times) 𝔐K-42 HF ¦ αγιος (3 times) 𝔐K-32 RP

External: 𝔐K leans toward the longer variant.

Internal: If the shorter variant were original, it would be harder to explain the various counting mistakes that occur in manuscripts: αγιος 4 times (1 manuscript), αγιος 6 times (5 manuscripts), αγιος 7 times (1 manuscript), αγιος 8 times (4 manuscripts), and αγιος 13 times (1 manuscript). Both variants are attested in uncials, and αγιος occurs 8 times in Codex Sinaiticus, which suggests that the longer variant is at least as early as the fourth century. It would be quite difficult to read and write αγιος nine times in an uncial text, undoubtedly leading to omissions due to homeoteleuton and/or homeoarcton.

5:8 προσευχων 𝔐K-34 ¦ προσευχαι 𝔐K-42 HF RP ¦ αι προσευχαι 𝔐K-6

External: 𝔐K leans toward προσευχαι.

Internal: The reading προσευχων is grammatically awkward, as the reader anticipates a form of προσευχη that will match the case of the relative pronoun αι. It seems more likely that scribes would adjust the text from προσευχων to προσευχαι than vice versa. 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. Yet it is the smoke of the incense that rises to heaven, carrying the prayers to God.

5:10 βασιλευσουσιν 𝔐K-50 HF RP ¦ βασιλευουσιν 𝔐K-41

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between βασιλευσουσιν and βασιλευουσιν.

Internal: According to 20:6, the reigning will happen in the future. It seems more likely that the letter σ was inadvertently dropped than added.

5:13 τω θρονω 𝔐K-60 HF ¦ του θρονου 𝔐K-20 RP

External: 𝔐K supports τω θρονω.

Internal: The dative and the genetive are both used in Revelation with the phrase καθημαι επι. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other.

(See also 19:4.)

6:10 φωνην μεγαλην 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ φωνη μεγαλη 𝔐K-11 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports φωνην μεγαλην.

Internal: 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.

6:11 αυτοις [first] 𝔐K-85 HF ¦ αυτοις εκαστω 𝔐K-6 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of εκαστω.

Internal: The addition of εκαστω was likely added to clarify that each person was to receive a robe rather than only one robe being given to all of them.

6:14 ελισσομενος 𝔐K-63 HF ¦ ελισσομενον 𝔐K-17 RP

External: 𝔐K supports ελισσομενος.

Internal: The neuter ελισσομενον is far more natural here. It seems much more likely that scribes would change ελισσομενος to ελισσομενον than vice versa.

6:16 τω θρονω 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ του θρονου 𝔐K-11 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports τω θρονω.

Internal: The dative and the genetive are both used in Revelation with the phrase καθημα επι. External evidence favors the dative in this case.

(See also 5:13.)

7:11 αυτου 𝔐K-75 HF ¦ — 𝔐K-8 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the inclusion of αυτου.

Internal: The omission of αυτου could be due to homeoteleuton, as the preceding word is θρονου. However, the omission may also be intentional, as the referent of αυτου is not immediately clear from the context, and the possessive pronoun is stylistically awkward. It seems more likely that scribes would either intentionally or unintentionally omit αυτου than add it.

7:14 επλατυναν 𝔐K-52 ¦ επλυναν 𝔐K-31 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward επλατυναν.

Internal: 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 phylacteries broad and 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.

8:3 δωση 𝔐K-50 RP ¦ δωσει 𝔐K-30 HF

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward δωση.

Internal: Itacism is common in Revelation and is generally not a deciding factor.

8:13 τους κατοικουντας 𝔐K-82 HF ¦ τοις κατοικουσιν 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports τους κατοικουντας.

Internal: The word ουαι is more naturally followed by the dative. It seems more likely that scribes would change the accusative to the dative than vice versa.

9:2 και 𝔐K-79 ¦ και ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου και 𝔐K-4 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoteleuton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. The longer text could very well be a gloss to explain what the author left implied. In 11:5–6, the author mentions the ability of the two witnesses to devour their enemies with fire from their mouths, shut the sky so that no rain falls, turn the waters into blood, and strike the earth with any plague. However, the author does not state that they actually did so; it is left implied. Similarly, in this text the author seems to have left implicit the idea that the star that was given the key did indeed open the pit of the abyss. It would seem tempting for scribes to want to make this implication explicit, and

9:11 αββαδων 𝔐K-26 HF RP ¦ αβααδδων 𝔐K-20 ¦ αββααδδων 𝔐K-14 ¦ αββααδων 𝔐K-10

External: 𝔐K is divided between various spellings, with αββαδων having the most support among 𝔐K manuscripts.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one spelling over another.

9:14 λεγοντος 𝔐K-73 HF ¦ λεγουσαν 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports λεγοντος.

Internal: The word λεγουσαν agrees in gender and case with φωνην μιαν. The word λεγοντος appears to be an awkward assimilation to θεου. It seems far more likely that scribes would change λεγοντος to λεγουσαν than vice versa.

9:20 και 𝔐K-78 ¦ και τα χαλκα και 𝔐K-6 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και τα χαλκα.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoarcton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. It is possible that the longer reading is an addition to bring the text into conformity with Daniel 5:23.

9:21 φαρμακων 𝔐K-66 HF ¦ φαρμακειων 𝔐K-12 RP

External: 𝔐K supports φαρμακων.

Internal: The majority 𝔐K reading is the genitive plural of φαρμακον, while the minority 𝔐K reading is the genitive plural of φαρμακεια. Both can be used with the connotation of sorcery. The authore uses φαρμακεια in 18:23, but this is not compelling enough evidence to outweight the strong external evidence in support of φαρμακων.

10:4 εμελλον 𝔐K-43 HF ¦ ημελλον 𝔐K-40

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between εμελλον and ημελλον.

Internal: 𝔐K manuscripts prefer εδυνατο over ηδυνατο in 5:3, 7:9, 14:3, and 15:8.

(See also 3:2.)

11:1 εγειρε 𝔐K-48 HF ¦ εγειραι 𝔐K-36

External: 𝔐K leans toward εγειρε.

Internal: Scribes may have wanted to make the command an aorist to match the command that follows. However, the author mixes present and aorist commands elsewhere, such as 2:5.

11:4 εστωτες 𝔐K-63 HF ¦ εστωσαι 𝔐K-19 RP

External: 𝔐K supports εστωτες.

Internal: 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 changing εστωσαι to agree with ουτοι.

11:13 εν 𝔐K-80 ¦ και εν 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other, although scribes may have been tempted to add και as being stylistically preferable.

11:15 λεγοντες 𝔐K-44 HF ¦ λεγουσαι 𝔐K-39 RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between λεγοντες and λεγουσαι.

Internal: Because λεγουσαι agrees in gender with the antecedent φωναι, it seems more likely that scribes would change λεγοντες to λεγουσαι. Although 𝔐K usually uses a feminine participle of λεγω with the noun φωνη, in 9:14 𝔐K uses a masculine participle. Thus, 11:15 would not be the only occurrence of a masculine participle being used with the feminine noun φωνη.

11:16 θρονου του θεου οι καθηνται 𝔐K-70 HF ¦ θεου καθημενοι 𝔐K-3 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports θρονου του θεου οι καθηνται.

Internal: The majority 𝔐K reading is a much harder reading stylistically. It seems more likely that a scribe would seek to smooth out the majority 𝔐K reading by changing οι καθηνται to καθημενοι. The omission of του θεου could be unintentional due to homeoteleuton, or it could also be intentional to eliminate redundancy given the presence of τω θεω later in the verse.

11:16 επεσον 𝔐K-50 HF RP ¦ επεσαν 𝔐K-33

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward επεσον.

Internal: These are two alternate forms of the same word. The preferred form throughout Revelation is επεσον.

(See also 17:10.)

11:19 ηνοιχθη 𝔐K-79 HF ¦ ηνοιγη 𝔐K-4 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports ηνοιχθη.

Internal: The author writes ηνοιγη in 15:5, but he writes ηνεωχθη in 20:12. Any arguments from internal evidence would be quite weak in this case compared to the external evidence.

13:4 τις [second] 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ και τις 𝔐K-10 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other, although scribes may have been tempted to add και as being stylistically preferable.

13:8 αυτον 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ αυτω 𝔐K-11 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports αυτον.

Internal: 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 for preferring one over the other.

13:8 ων ουτε 𝔐K-46 ¦ ων ου 𝔐K-34 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans toward ων ουτε.

Internal: The word following ουτε is γεγραπται. In uncial script, the letters τε and γε look very similar (ΤΕ ¦ ΓΕ). The letters τε may have been omitted due to homeoarcton.

13:10 δει αυτον 𝔐K-80 HF ¦ αποκτενει δει αυτον εν μαχαιρα 𝔐K-5 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports δει αυτον.

Internal: The terseness of the majority 𝔐K reading seemed to entice scribes to fill in the gaps, which accounts for the multipicity of readings for this variant unit. If one of the longer readings were original, it would be hard to imagine scribes intentionally shortening it. At the same time, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same unintentional omission.

13:11 κερατα 𝔐K-72 ¦ κερατα δυο 𝔐K-9 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of δυο.

Internal: Throughout Revelation any references to horns are accompanied by a number. In this instance alone, the horns are mentioned as being like the horns of another animal, which may indicate that the focus is not on the number but on the type of horn, especially since it is common knowledge that lambs have two horns. Scribes may have added δυο to assimilate this text to the others that mention the number of horns, finding significance in the fact that it was the second beast (hence two horns). However, 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K, and it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same unintentional omission.

13:14 πληγην 𝔐K-90 HF ¦ την πληγην 𝔐K-0 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of την.

Internal: Scribes may have added the article to refer more specifically to the wound mentioned in 13:3 and 13:12. However, the article is not needed, and

13:16 δωσωσιν 𝔐K-57 HF RP ¦ δωσουσιν 𝔐K-24

External: 𝔐K supports δωσωσιν.

Internal: 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 outweighs the internal evidence. {Note: While the Text und Textwert variant includes three words in the variant unit, the only major difference in 𝔐K is between δωσωσιν and δωσουσιν, with the reading δωσωσιν being dominant.}

13:16 χειρος 𝔐K-63 ¦ της χειρος 𝔐K-19 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of της.

Internal: In 8:4 and 19:2 the author also uses an anarthrous χειρος followed by a possessive pronoun.

13:18 ο 𝔐K-73 HF ¦ και ο 𝔐K-8 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other, although scribes may have been tempted to add και as being stylistically preferable.

14:3 ουδε εις 𝔐K-49 ¦ ουδεις 𝔐K-31 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward ουδε εις.

Internal: It would have been easy for a scribe to unintetionally drop one of the epsilons.

14:4 εαν 𝔐K-75 HF ¦ αν 𝔐K-6 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports εαν.

Internal: 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.

14:8 αυτης 𝔐K-39 HF RP ¦ ταυτης 𝔐K-38

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between αυτης and ταυτης.

Internal: The word αυτης follows πορνεια in 2:21, 17:2, 17:4, and 19:2, making ταυτης the harder reading. While a strong argument could be made that scribes changed ταυτης to the more familiar and stylistically preferable αυτης, there is no clear referant that the word ταυτης seems to be pointing to. Because αυτης and ταυτης differ by only one letter, it appears that ταυτης is simply a copying error.

14:14 υιον 𝔐K-51 HF ¦ υιω 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward υιον.

Internal: It seems more likely that scribes would change υιον to the more natural υιω than vice versa.

(See also 1:13.)

14:16 τη νεφελη 𝔐K-63 ¦ την νεφελην 𝔐 K-22 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports τη νεφελη.

Internal: 𝔐K uses the dative in 7:10 as well. The use of the accusative could be an attempt to bring this text into conformity with 14:14.

14:18 εν κραυγη 𝔐K-54 HF ¦ κραυγη 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of εν.

Internal: The omission of εν could be due to homoeoteleuton, as the previous word is εφωνησε(ν).

14:18 ηκμασεν η σταφυλη της γης 𝔐K-83 HF ¦ ηκμασαν αι σταφυλαι αυτης 𝔐K-0 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports ηκμασεν η σταφυλη της γης.

Internal: Both readings make good sense. In Matthew 7:16 and Luke 6:44, the singular form is used in a collective sense. However, there is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. And the external evidence far outweighs any arguments that might be made from internal evidence.

14:19 εξεβαλεν 𝔐K-72 HF ¦ εβαλεν 𝔐K-10 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports εξεβαλεν.

Internal: Scribes may have been tempted to change εξεβαλεν to εβαλεν to match εβαλεν later in the verse. Scribes may have also found the use of εξεβαλεν to be a bit awkward with the preposition εις, prompting them to change εξεβαλεν to εβαλεν.

15:2 της εικονος και εκ του θηριου 𝔐K-75 ¦ του θηριου και εκ της εικονος 𝔐K-5 HF RP

External: The majority 𝔐K reading is by far the harder reading. It seems likely that scribes would have change the reading to bring it into conformity with the pattern seen elsewhere (14:9,11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). But if the minority 𝔐K reading were original, it would be difficult to explain how the majority 𝔐K reading gained such wide acceptance. For the majority 𝔐K reading, the word αυτου following θηριου is not a possessive pronoun but an intensive pronoun. Thus 15:2 would read as follows: the image, the beast himself, and the number of his name.

15:2 τας 𝔐K-57 HF ¦ — 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of τας.

Internal: The omission of τας is likely due to homeoteleuton, as the preceding word is εχοντας.

15:3 δουλου 𝔐K-74 ¦ του δουλου 𝔐K-7 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of του.

Internal: Scribes may have added του before δουλου to bring the phrase into alignment with the phrase του αρνιου later in the verse.

15:4 δοξασει 𝔐K-42 ¦ δοξαση 𝔐K-41 HF RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between δοξασει and δοξαση.

Internal: It seems more likely that scribes would have changed the indicative to the subjunctive than vice versa since the preceding verb is also a subjunctive.

15:4 παντες 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ παντα τα εθνη 𝔐K-12 RP

External: 𝔐K supports παντες.

Internal: The minority 𝔐K reading may be an attempt to assimilate the text to 12:5, 14:8, 18:3, and 18:23, which all read παντα τα εθνη.

15:6 πληγας 𝔐K-72 HF ¦ εκ του ναου [before οι εχοντες] 𝔐K-8 ¦ πληγας εκ του ναου 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the exclusion of εκ του ναου.

Internal: The addition of εκ του ναου may be an assimilation to 14:17. 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 𝔐C includes the phrase εκ του ουρανου rather than εκ του ναου, which is a variation that still seeks to align with 14:17.

(See also 16:1.)

15:8 εκ του καπνου 𝔐K-70 HF ¦ του καπνου 𝔐K-8 ¦ καπνου 𝔐K-1 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the inclusion of εκ του.

Internal: In the New Testament, the genetive of content is not generally preceded by a preposition or an article. Stylistically, the majority 𝔐K reading is a bit awkward, which might have prompted scribes to omit the words εκ του.

16:1 μεγαλης φωνης 𝔐K-56 ¦ 𝔐K-25 φωνης μεγαλης HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports μεγαλης φωνης.

Internal: Scribes may have been tempted to change the order to φωνης μεγαλης to bring the phrase into alignment with 11:12 and 21:3.

16:1 λεγουσης 𝔐K-80 ¦ εκ του ναου λεγουσης 𝔐K-1 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of εκ του ναου.

Internal: This may be another assimilation to 14:17.

(See also 15:6.)

16:3 ψυχη 𝔐K-78 HF ¦ ψυχη ζωσα 𝔐K-4 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of ζωσα.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes added ζωσα to bring the text into alignment with Genesis 1:24. Other scribes added ζωης to bring the text into alignment with Genesis 1:30.

ος ην οσιος 𝔐K-35 ¦ ο ην ο οσιος 𝔐K-20 RP ¦ ο ην οσιος 𝔐K-18 HF ¦ ος ην ο οσιος 𝔐K-7

External: 𝔐K is significantly divided but leans toward ος ην οσιος.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes would change ος ην to ο ην to assimilate this text to 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:7, making it function as a title rather than a copulative verb. The addition of the article before οσιος would make it a clear substantivet to also function as a title.

16:8 τεταρτος 𝔐K-66 HF ¦ τεταρτος αγγελος 𝔐K-18 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of αγγελος.

Internal: 𝔐A adds αγγελος for the second through seventh angels in chapter 16, which seems to be an attempt by scribes to bring uniformity to the list.

16:10 εμασωντο 𝔐K-46 HF RP ¦ εμασσωντο 𝔐K-32

External: 𝔐K leans toward εμασωντο.

Internal: There is no compelling internal evidence to support one spelling over the other.

16:12 αυτου την φιαλην 𝔐K-53 ¦ την φιαλην αυτου 𝔐K-27

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward αυτου την φιαλην.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes would have changed this text to read την φιαλην αυτου in order to assimilate it to the same phrase in verses 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 17. However, 𝔐K already demonstrates a lack of consistency in this text, explicitly writing the word αγγελος only in verse 3.

16:16 μαγεδων 𝔐K-73 HF ¦ αρμαγεδων 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports μαγεδων.

Internal: Because this is the only reference to this location in the New Testament, there is no compelling evidence to prefer one variant over the other. The argument could be made that the majority 𝔐K reading is assimilating to the Septuagint. However, the external evidence outweighs any such argument.

16:21 αυτη 𝔐K-37 HF ¦ αυτης 𝔐K-41 RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between αυτης and αυτη.

Internal: 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 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. However, the first explanation seems more straightforward, requring fewer assumptions. The reading αυτης could also be an attempt to assimilate to the genetive following τῆς πληγῆς earlier in the verse. Whatever the case may be, the internal evidence does not strongly favor one reading over the other.

πνευματι 𝔐K-62 ¦ εν πνευματι 𝔐K-23 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of εν.

Internal: The argument could be made that εν was inadvertently omitted due to homeoteleuton, as the prior word is ερημον. However, it would be difficult for such an omission to be propogated in 73% of 𝔐K manuscripts. Rather, in light of the fact that 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K, it seems that scribes have added εν to improve the style and that a minority of 𝔐K scribes adopted that addition.

17:3 θηριον το 𝔐K-51 HF ¦ θηριον 𝔐K-26 RP ¦ το θηριον το 𝔐K-8

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward θηριον το.

Internal: The majority 𝔐K 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 seems likely that scribes would omit 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.

17:4 της γης 𝔐K-76 HF ¦ αυτης 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports της γης.

Internal: The reading αυτης seems to be a scribal change to assimilate the text to 2:21, 14:8, 17:2, 18:3, and 19:2.

17:6 του 𝔐K-73 ¦ εκ του 𝔐K-9

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of εκ.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes added εκ to match the εκ found later in the verse.

17:8 την γην 𝔐K-70 HF ¦ επι της γης 𝔐K-12 RP

External: 𝔐K supports την γην.

Internal: 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), in 17:2 κατοικουντες is followed by την γην. Thus, the author uses both cases following κατοικεω. Scribes may have written επι της γης here in 17:8 to assimilate to the eight other times in Revelation where that phrase follows a form of κατοικεω. Although, it is questionable why they would not have done so in 17:2 as well. Perhaps the similar phrasing of 13:8 influenced them to make an adjustment in 17:8. Whatever the case may be, the external evidence outweighs any arguments from internal evidence.

17:8 το ονομα 𝔐K-69 HF ¦ τα ονοματα 𝔐K-13 RP

External: 𝔐K supports το ονομα.

Internal: Both here and in 13:8, it seems that the 𝔐A scribes have changed the singular to plural to match the plural noun phrase οι κατοικουντες and the plural relative pronoun ων.

17:8 του βιβλιου 𝔐K-65 HF ¦ το βιβλιον 𝔐K-13 RP

External: 𝔐K supports του βιβλιου.

Internal: In the five other places in Revelation where the phrase written in the book(s) occurs (13:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:18), the author uses εν followed by the dative rather than επι. Thus, in this case, there is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other, and any argument from internal evidence would be outweighed by the external evidence.

17:10 επεσον [52.3%] 𝔐K-47 HF RP ¦ επεσαν 𝔐K-36

External: 𝔐K leans toward επεσον.

Internal: These are two alternate forms of the same word. The preferred form throughout Revelation is επεσον.

(See also 11:16.)

17:11 ουτος 𝔐K-69 HF ¦ αυτος 𝔐K-14 RP

External: 𝔐K supports ουτος.

Internal: There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other.

17:13 εξουσιαν 𝔐K-62 HF ¦ την εξουσιαν 𝔐K-21 RP

External: 𝔐K supports εξουσιαν.

Internal: It seems that scribes may have added the article to match the article preceding δυναμιν.

17:18 επι 𝔐K-52 HF ¦ — 𝔐K-30 RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward the inclusion of επι.

Internal: The repitition of επι is a bit awkward stylistically. Scribes may have been inclined to omit the second επι in an attempt to improve the style.

18:3 πεπτωκασι 𝔐K-62 RP ¦ πεπωκασι 𝔐K-18 HF ¦ πεποκασι 𝔐K-6

External: 𝔐K supports πεπτωκασι.

Internal: Due to the mention of wine, it seems more likely that scribes would omit τ to have the text read πεπωκασι. But if the original text read πεπωκασι, there would be little motivation for scribes to add τ. It also seems more likely that scribes would inadvertently omit τ than add it.

18:5 εμνημονευσεν αυτης 𝔐K-56 HF ¦ εμνημονευσεν 𝔐K-19 RP ¦ εμνημονευσεν αυτοις 𝔐K-7

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of αυτης.

Internal: 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 it than add it.

18:6 τα διπλα ως και αυτη και 𝔐K-67 HF ¦ αυτη διπλα 𝔐K-13 RP

External: 𝔐K supports τα διπλα ως και αυτη και.

Internal: Scribes may have found ως και αυτη to be logically incoherent as a doubling would not be a true doubling if Bablyon the Great had herself doubled what she had rendered. Stylistically, the longer text is also a bit awkward. It seems more likely that scribes would have made changes to improve the logic and flow of this statement to the shorter text of 𝔐A.

18:6 ποτηριω αυτης 𝔐K-62 HF ¦ ποτηριω 𝔐K-20 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of αυτης.

Internal: Scribes may have viewed the inclusion of αυτης as unnecessary and disruptive of the flow between the dative noun ποτηριω and the dative relative pronoun ω. If αυτης were not original, it does not seem likely that scribes would add it.

18:7 οτι καθως 𝔐K-51 ¦ οτι καθημαι 𝔐K-14 HF RP ¦ οτι ειμι καθως 𝔐K-8

External: 𝔐K supports οτι καθως.

Internal: The majority 𝔐K reading οτι καθως is the harder reading due to the lack of a verb, and we see two main attempts by 𝔐K scribes to correct it by adding verbs. It seems quite unlikely that scribes would have changed either of the minority 𝔐K readings to the majority 𝔐K reading.

18:8 πενθος 𝔐K-70 HF ¦ και πενθος 𝔐K-10 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: Most lists in Revelation have the word και between items. If και were original, it seems unlikely that scribes would omit it. However, if και was missing in the original text, it seems likely that scribes would add it for stylistic purposes.

18:13 κινναμωμου 𝔐K-37 ¦ κιναμωμου 𝔐K-33 ¦ κιναμωμον 𝔐K-2 HF RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided betwee κινναμωμου and κιναμωμου.

Internal: The use of the genitive seems to be an inadvertent continuation of the genitives used at the end of verse 12. It seems much more likely that scribes would change the genitive to an accustative to match the items that follow in verse 13 than vice versa. Regarding the spelling of the genitive, there is no compelling evidence to prefer one form over the other.

18:13 ελαιον 𝔐K-70 ¦ οινον και ελαιον 𝔐K-12 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of οινον και.

Internal: The addition of οινον και may be an attempt to assimilate the reading to 6:6. While it could be argued that οινον και was inadvertently omitted due to homoeteleuton or homeoarcton, it is would be difficult for such an omission to gain widespread acceptance among the independent 𝔐K manuscripts. As shown by the prior variant unit, HF and RP do not consider every apparent omission due to homoeteleuton or homeoarcton to be an actual omission.

18:15 και κλαιοντες 𝔐K-62 HF ¦ κλαιοντες 𝔐K-21 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of και.

Internal: This variant unit must be considered with the one that follows. If the word και is present before κλαιοντες and λεγοντες, it would group the three together, which is somewhat awkward. If και is not present before λεγοντες, then it becomes natural to group κλαιοντες and πενθουντες together with the και preceding κλαιοντες but not λεγοντες. A minorty of 𝔐K- manuscripts read και κλαιοντες και πενθουντες και λεγοντες. It seems that scribes did not seem to like the grouping of the three together and omitted the first και.

18:16 λεγοντες 𝔐K-48 ¦ και λεγοντες 𝔐K-28 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward the omission of και.

Internal: See the explanation in the previous variant unit.

18:16 ουαι 𝔐K-68 ¦ ουαι ουαι 𝔐K-14 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of the second ουαι.

Internal: While the argument could be made that the second ουαι was dropped due to homeoteleuton or homeoarcton, it would be difficult for such an omission to gain widespread acceptance in the independent 𝔐K- manuscripts. It seems that scribes added the second ουαι to conform this text to verses 10 and 19.

18:16 βυσσον 𝔐K-63 HF ¦ βυσσινον 𝔐K-18 RP

External: 𝔐K supports βυσσον.

Internal: The substantival adjective and noun are used somewhat interchangeably, and there is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other.

18:23 οι 𝔐K-57 HF ¦ οτι οι 𝔐K-21 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of οτι.

Internal: While the argument could be made that the omission of οτι is due to homeoteleuton, it would be difficult to explain how this omission gained widespread acceptance among the independent 𝔐K manuscripts. It seems likely that scribes would have added οτι to make a stronger connection with the preceding text.

19:4 επεσον 𝔐K-52 HF RP ¦ επεσαν 𝔐K-28

External: 𝔐K leans hevaily toward επεσον.

Internal: In 22:8, επεσον is the clear reading of 𝔐K.

(See also 1:17.)

19:4 τω θρονω 𝔐K-66 HF ¦ του θρονου 𝔐K-15 RP

External: 𝔐K supports τω θρονω.

Internal: The dative and the genetive are both used in Revelation with the phrase καθημαι επι. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other.

(See also 5:13.)

19:9 το 𝔐K-52 ¦ τον 𝔐K-29

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward το.

Internal: All lexicons that mention the masculine form of δειπνον say it was a late arrival; if it did not exist in the first century, it cannot be original.

(See also 19:17.)

19:10 επεσον 𝔐K-40 ¦ επεσα 𝔐K-41 HF RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between επεσον and επεσα.

Internal: These are two alternate forms of the same word. In 22:8, επεσον is the clear reading of 𝔐K.

(See also 1:17 and 19:4.)

19:13 κεκληται 𝔐K-65 HF ¦ καλειται 𝔐K-15 RP

External: 𝔐K supports κεκληται.

Internal: Scribes may have changed κεκληται to καλειται to assimilate this text to 11:8.

19:14 τα 𝔐K-48 HF RP ¦ — 𝔐K-26

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward the inclusion of τα.

Internal: It seems likely that some scribes would have inadvertently omitted τα due to homeoteleuton, as the preceding word is στρατευματα.

19:17 εν 𝔐K-54 HF ¦ — 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of εν.

Internal: Scribes likely omitted εν due to homeoteleuton with the preceding word εκραξεν.

19:17 το δειπνον το μεγα του 𝔐K-40 ¦ τον δειπνον τον μεγαν του 𝔐K-31

External: 𝔐K leans toward το δειπνον το μεγα του.

Internal: All lexicons that mention the masculine form of δειπνον say it was a late arrival; if it did not exist in the first century, it cannot be original.

(See also 19:9.)

19:19 τον 𝔐K-53 HF ¦ — 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of τον.

Internal: Scribes may have omitted τον to assimilate the text to 12:17.

20:2 ο 𝔐K-42 HF RP ¦ — 𝔐K-36

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between the inclusion and the omission of the article.

Internal: Scribes may have omitted the article to assimilate this text to 12:9.

20:3 μετα 𝔐K-59 HF ¦ και μετα 𝔐K-16 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of και.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other, although scribes may have been tempted to add και as being stylistically preferable.

20:3 λυθηναι αυτον 𝔐K-67 HF ¦ αυτον λυθηναι 𝔐K-10 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports λυθηναι αυτον.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other.

20:5 αυτη 𝔐K-59 ¦ και οι λοιποι των νεκρων ουκ εζησαν αχρι τελεσθη τα χιλια ετη αυτη 𝔐K-16 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of και οι λοιποι των νεκρων ουκ εζησαν αχρι τελεσθη τα χιλια ετη.

Internal: The longer reading appears to a gloss that was added to explain what happened to the rest of the dead who did not participate in the first resurrection.

20:6 μετα ταυτα 𝔐K-55 ¦ μετ αυτου 𝔐K-20 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports μετα ταυτα.

Internal: The two phrases are very similar, and one could easily be mistaken for the other. It seems likely that scribes would have been inclined toward the μετ αυτου reading because of its similarity to 20:4, which states that those who participate in the first resurrection will reign with Christ. However, in 5:10 the author is comfortable speaking about their future reign without explicitly mentioning Christ as the one they will reign with.

20:7 μετα 𝔐K-64 ¦ οταν τελεσθη 𝔐K-9 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports μετα.

Internal: The reading οταν τελεσθη may be the results of scribes assimilating this text to the 𝔐A variant reading in 20:5.

20:8 αυτων 𝔐K-61 HF ¦ — 𝔐K-15 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of αυτων.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes would have deemed αυτων to be unnecessary due to the presence of ων before ο αριθμος.

20:8 ως η 𝔐K-34 HF RP ¦ ωσει 𝔐K-41

EV between ως η and ωσει.

IN This is a reference to Isaiah 10:22, which reads ως η. The variant ωσει is a result of itacism, which causes 𝔐K to split in an handful of variant units.

20:9 εκυκλευσαν 𝔐K-50 HF ¦ εκυκλωσαν 𝔐K-23 RP

External: 𝔐K leans toward εκυκλευσαν.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other. The two verbs are similar in form and virtually identical in meaning.

20:12 εστωτας 𝔐K-53 ¦ τους μεγαλους και τους μικρους εστωτας 𝔐K-4 HF RP ¦ εστωτας τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους 𝔐K-11

External: 𝔐K supports the shorter text.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoteleuton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. It seems likely that scribes attempted to assimilate this text to 11:18, 13:16, 19:5, and 19:18. Some scribes followed the order of those other texts (τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους), while others reversed the order (τους μεγαλους και τους μικρους).

20:12 ηνοιξαν 𝔐K-53 HF ¦ ηνοιχθησαν 𝔐K-12 ¦ ηνεωχθησαν 𝔐K-3 RP

External: 𝔐K supports ηνοιξαν.

Internal: 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 may have been inclined to assimilate this verb to the passive verb that appears later in the sentence with the subject βιβλιον.

20:13 αυτου 𝔐K-46 HF ¦ αυτων 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward αυτου.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes changed αυτου to αυτων to assimilate the text to the prior verse.

21:5 ειπεν 𝔐K-48 ¦ και ειπεν 𝔐K-27 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward the omission of και.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one reading over the other, although scribes may have been tempted to add και as being stylistically preferable.

21:5 πιστοι και αληθινοι του θεου εισι 𝔐K-64 HF ¦ αληθινοι και πιστοι εισι του θεου 𝔐K-10 ¦ αληθινοι και πιστοι εισι 𝔐K-2

External: 𝔐K supports πιστοι και αληθινοι του θεου εισι.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes changed the text to assimilate it to 22:6.

21:6 και η αρχη και το 𝔐K-58 HF ¦ η αρχη και το 𝔐K-8 RP ¦ αρχη και 𝔐K-14

External: 𝔐K supports και η αρχη και το.

Internal: 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 𝔐A reading in 1:8.

21:6 αυτω 𝔐K-76 ¦ — 𝔐K-4 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the inclusion of αυτω.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes omitted αυτω because it seemed redundant and unnecessary given that the text already contains τω διψωντι.

21:7 δωσω αυτω 𝔐K-67 HF ¦ κληρονομησει 𝔐K-4 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports δωσω αυτω.

Internal: The shift from ο νικων to δωσω is quite abrupt, which likely led scribes to change the text to have the verb match the nominative ο νικων.

21:10 αγιαν 𝔐K-63 HF ¦ μεγαλην και αγιαν 𝔐K-8 ¦ μεγαλην την αγιαν 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports αγιαν.

Internal: While the argument could be made that the 𝔐K scribes assimilated this text to 11:2, 21:2, and 22:19, the 𝔐K scribes generally avoid assimilating to other texts within Revelation. Rather, it seems likely that the 𝔐A and 𝔐C scribes assimilated 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.

21:10 εκ 𝔐K-64 HF ¦ απο 𝔐K-3 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports εκ.

Internal: Scribes likely changed εκ to απο to assimilate the text to 20:9 and/or 21:2.

21:11 κρυσταλλιζοντι 𝔐K-44 HF RP ¦ κρυσταλιζοντι 𝔐K-29

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward κρυσταλλιζοντι.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one spelling over the other. The noun form is spelled with two lambdas.

21:12 δεκαδυο 𝔐K-49 ¦ δωδεκα 𝔐K-17 RP ¦ ιβ΄ 𝔐K-7

External: 𝔐K supports δεκαδυο.

Internal: Scribes likely changed δεκαδυο to δωδεκα to assimilate to the other two ocurrences of δωδεκα in the verse.

21:12 υιων 𝔐K-54 HF ¦ των υιων 𝔐K-5 RP ¦ του 𝔐K-9

External: 𝔐K supports υιων.

Internal: While the argument could be made that the omission of των is due to homeoteleuton, it would be highly improbable for multiple independent streams to make the same error of omission. The word των does not appear before υιων ισραηλ in a similar construction in 7:4, but it may have been added by some scribe in this verse for stylistic purposes.