Site Map | Compare Bible Translations | King James Onlyism | New Bible Translations | Store | Branches of NT Manuscripts

 

Textual Criticism Exercises - Variants in Revelation to Ponder

 

Taken from my translation (now further updated) of the Revelation of John.

 

(If your browser does not display some of the Greek letters on this page, I discuss Unicode issues on this page.)

It would also help to install the specific fonts I use, which are GentiumAlt and Doulos SIL and Ezra SIL.

 

Abbreviation keys: "TR" = the Textus Receptus, Stephens 1550 Ed.; "WH" = Westcott & Hort GNT, 1881; "VS" = Hermann von Soden GNT, 1913; "RC" = R. H. Charles Greek edition of Revelation, 1920; "HF" = Hodges/Farstad Majority Text edition, 1985; "PK" = Wilbur N. Pickering's edition of the Apocalypse; "RP" = Robinson-Pierpont GNT, 2005 edition; "NA" = Nestle-Aland 27th Edition GNT, 2001; "MS" = "manuscript"; "MSS" = "manuscripts; "al" = alii- "and others"; "vg" = the vulgate; "syr" = Syriac translations; "cop" = Coptic translations; "it" = italic, or Old Latin translations, the superscript letters following designating which edition and date thereof.

 

Manuscript correctors and Marginal readings

The sigla אtxt complements אmg in contradistinction, and the sigla אTcomplements אZ in contradistinction, and א* complements אc or 1א or א2 in contradistinction.  The sigla אZ is less decisive about whether the variant is a "marginal reading" or "vaiant reading", than is the sigla אmg.  The sigla אc and  1אare definite corrections or "replacements" to the text in א* whereas the text in אZ is less decidedly so, if at all.  Often, or most often perhaps, אZ is just pointing to other variant readings that are out there.

 

Here is an example of where most of the above sigla are used in one verse, Revelation 1:9.

 

 א* reads ΙΑΝΗC for ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ (John), then 1א corrects ΙΑΝΗC to IωΑΝΗC, then א2  corrects ΙΑΝΗC to IωANNHC. 

 אtxt  reads ΙY, for "Jesus."  (along with C P 1611 1678 1778 2020 2050 2080 WH VS RC NA

אZ  reads IY Xω; possibly as a correction to read "Jesus Christ" Or, it is simply showing an alternate reading in the margin, Xω, that found in Codex A, which reads just Xω "Christ," without IY.

The Byzantine mss read Xω IY (Christ Jesus), and the TR reads IY XY (Jesus Christ, but a different grammatical inflection from אZ ).

 

These two-letter abbreviations for Jesus Christ (and other names for God) are what is known as "Nomina Sacra."  But Greek mss did this for other names as well, like David.

 

Here is the URL for the pertinent image of Codex Sinaiticus:

 

http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_01/GA01_126b.jpg

 

Verse 9 is in the second column, line 13.

 

On line 13 is the 01* example:- after the 4th letter, a corrector has added a letter above the line.  But then after the N, a different corrector in a different hand has added another N above the line.

 

The אZ example is at the end of the 17th line.  After "IY" (Jesus) and above it, there is a mark called an "obelus" that looks like a diagonal ÷ sign.  This sign refers you to the margin, where you find another reading, Xω.  (Χριστω)

 

Another verse with both 1א  and אZ is Revelation 13:8b, where Muenster says:

 

 אT reads:  ωN ΓεΓΡAΠTAI TA ONOMATA AYTωN EN BIBLω

 1א reads: ωN ΓεΓΡAΠTAI TA ONOMATA  EN BIBLω  (removes AYTωN)

 אZ reads: ωN OY ΓεΓΡAΠTAI TA ONOMATA EN Tω BIBLω  (adds OY and Tω)

 

http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_01/GA01_131a.jpg

 

Verse 13:8b starts in the first column, on the 32nd line.

 

After the 5th letter, you can see "OY" written above the gap.  And on the 34th line, after the 3rd letter, you can see "Tω" added above.  These additions are not in the text line itself, so thus are called "אZ ."

 

For the 1א  reading, Muenster says "AYTωN" is removed.  This is at the end of the 33rd line.  The word AYTωN is not actually erased, but there are dots above the letters.

News about Papyrus 115 and the Number of the Beast

Papyrus 115, a third or fourth century fragment of the Apocalypse of John has a different reading for the number of the beast than that found in most manuscripts: 616, which is also found in Codex C.  Papyrus 115 reads Η ΧΙC which means "or 616."  Perhaps it originally spelled out 616, as follows, ΕΞΑΚΟCΙΟΙ ΔΕΚΑ ΕΞ followed by Η ΧΙC.  It is also speculated that, rather than make a commitment to one reading or the other 666 or 616, it had both, separated by the word "H" which means "or."  Another possibility for the H letter, is that the scribe mistook the final N of ESTIN, for ESTI H.  Later, a corrector put a bar over the H as a correction or editing sign.

 

See the image below, where on the 3rd line you can clearly see the letters Η ΧΙC.  ‘or 616”

http://www.bibletranslation.ws/gfx/p115.jpg

 

 

 

  

 

Passages in the Book of Revelation:

 

An Accidental Scribal Addition in DRP translation of Revelation

 

I finished translating the Apocalypse of John in April, 2006.  And now in August 2016, as I am making my TR and RP editions, I discovered a scribal error on my part.  In Rev. 16:11, I wrote in English “they reviled the name of the God of heaven.”  But the Greek only says ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, they reviled the God of heaven.  So, I made a scribal addition of the words “the name of.”  Even though my exemplar had the correct text.  Why did I accidentally do this?  Because two verses prior, the same word ἐβλασφήμησαν was followed by τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ, “they reviled the name of God,” and I was familiar with that phrase from just having translated that verse.  See immediately below my translation as it stood from April 2006 to August 2016.

 

16:9 καὶ ἐκαυματίσθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καῦμα μέγα, καὶ ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἔχοντος τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τὰς πληγὰς ταύτας, καὶ οὐ μετενόησαν δοῦναι αὐτῷ δόξαν.

   And the people were burned a very bad burn, and they reviled the name of God, the one having authority over these plagues; yet they did not repent to give him glory.

16:11 καὶ ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐκ τῶν πόνων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑλκῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν.

   ¹¹and they reviled the name of the God of heaven, because of their pains and because of their ulcers, yet they did not repent of their works.

 

I looked in Hoskier’s apparatus to find out if any ancient scribes made the same mistake which I did, and lo, two of them did indeed make the same addition.

 

The minuscule 1957 reads in v. 11, ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ, an exact duplication of the previous phrase in v. 9, even without the τοῦ οὐρανοῦ of v. 11.

 

The Philoxenian Syriac in v. 11 reads ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.  My translation was an exact translation of the Philoxenian Syriac, without my knowledge or intent.

 

So, when you see the UBS Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament speculate that a phrase found in the BYZ text but not found in the UBS text, and they say it was added because of scribal familiarity with that phrase a couple verses prior, I can personally attest how that can and does happen.

 

Rev. 1:5b Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ

“To him who loves us, and freed* us from our sins with his blood…”

 

* txt “freed” P¹⁸ א A C 88 181 792 922 1384* 1611 1678 2019 2026 2028txt 2050 2074 2081 2329 2344vid 2351 2436 2814 ith vg-z syrph,h eth arm Andrew; Victorinus-Pettau Primasius WH VS RC NA {A} // “washed” P 046c (046* homoioteleuton) 35 82 94 104 241 424 459 469 627 757 920 1006 1828 1841 1854 1862 1888 2028Z 2040 2053 2059 2060 2062 2065 2080 2138 it(ar),gig,t vg copbo Apringius Beatus TR HF PK RP // lacuna 051 1778 2030 2032.  The "freed" reading is reminiscent of λέλυται αὐτῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία in Isaiah 40:2, and it fits better with the preposition ἐν in this verse.  This is a Hebraistic use of the preposition ἐν – “en,” meaning "with" in the sense of what item or money you use to pay for something.  For example, "I bought the camera with the money you gave me."  Jesus' blood was the thing of value exchanged for our freedom.  This use of this preposition is a pointer in favor of the "freed" reading versus the "washed" reading, according to the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.  And scribes, not understanding this, thought that "washed in" made more sense than "freed in."  I give the NA27 reading an A rating of certainty.

 

 

Rev. 5:1  βιβλίον γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν

            “a scroll, written on inside and back”

 

* txt ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν “inside and back” A 69 94 1828mg 2057 2059 2060 2081 2329 2344 2814 syrh Origen¼ Cyprian Cassiodorus TR NA27 {\} // ἔσωθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν “inside and outside” P 046 82 104 241 469 627 757 792 920 1006 1611 1678 1778 1828txt 1841 1854 1862 1888 2019 2050 2053 2065 2074 2080 (2138? illeg.) 2344 2351 itar,gig vg syrph copbo arm eth Hippolytus Origen¼ Victorinus-Pettau Aphraates Hilary Oecumenius Primasius HF PK RP // ἔμπροσθεν καὶ τὰ ὄπισθεν “front and back” א pc copsa Origen2/4 (conformed to Septuagint Ezekiel 2:10- τὰ ἔμπροσθεν καὶ τὰ ὀπίσω) // lacuna C 051 1384 2030 2062.  In addition, there are a couple important cursives that combine the above two main readings, minuscules 35 and 2073.  The UBS textual commentary says that after codices came to be used, the terminology for scrolls seemed strange, thus the later change to the Majority Text reading.  Here is an example that shows how Codex A contains older readings in Revelation.  I give the NA27 reading a C rating of certainty, since there are so many fine manuscripts supporting the RP reading.

 

 

Rev. 13:14  καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας* ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου,

And he deceives those dwelling on the earth by means of the signs which were given him to do before the beast,

 

 * txt omit P47 A C P 046 94 104 241 424 792 920 922 1006 1611 1678 1778 1828 1841 1862 1888 2019 2040 2053 2059 2060 2065 2074 2080 2081 2329 2351 syrph,h TR WH VS RC NA27 {\} // add τοὺς ἐμοὺς “my own people” 051 35 82 469 627 757 2073 2138 2377 HF PK RP // lacuna 1384 2030 2050 2062.  The Majority Text editions seem to limit the beast’s deception to “my own people,” with John speaking.  Though I am sure the first reading, without the added phrase, is the correct one, the second reading is not as far out as it first may seem, when you consider Daniel 11:33-34.  Here is an example of where the usual triumvirate 82, 627, 920 are split up.  No true Majority text here.  I give the NA27 reading an A rating of certainty.

 

 

Rev 3:2b  γίνου γρηγορῶν, καὶ στήρισον τὰ λοιπὰ ἃ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν*

            “Be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die.”

 

* txt “were / are about to die” א A C P 88 104 424 459 922 1384 1678 1778 1828 1854 1862 1888 2050 2053 2059 2060 2074 2080 2329 2351 itar,gig,t vg syrph,h copsa TR NA27 {\} // “you were about to throw away” 046 35 82 94 241 469 627 757 792 920 1006 1611 1841 2040 2065 2138 (copbo) HF RP PK // lacuna 051 2030 2062.  In addition, there are a couple other variants in a few late minuscules.  The exact TR reading is not attested by the Greek manuscripts.  But basically, the TR reading is in agreement in essential meaning with the NA27 in that it says the things that remain are about to die.  The HF/RP reading means "the things that remain, which you were about to throw away."  The NA27 reading is supported by all the earliest Greek manuscripts and by all the old Latin, as well as by quite a large number of the cursives.  H. C. Hoskier points out that no early versions (translations) show awareness of the "throw away" reading.  I give the NA27 reading an A rating of certainty.

 

1 John 5:7-8, the “Johannine Comma”  Download a PDF telling the story of how this got added into the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.  Right click the link, and choose “save as” or “save link as.”

 

Recently, a Jeffrey Khoo in Singapore has been claiming that Papyrus 64, one of our oldest Greek manuscripts, supports the Textus Receptus against the NA27 / UBS text in Matthew 26:22.  He is not correct.  Here is a PDF showing the exact readings of the manuscripts.

 

Here is a PDF document showing the evidence for Bethany vs. Bethabara in John 1:28.  It is a 430 KB document.

 

If you would like to read cursive N.T. manuscripts (minuscules), but you don't know how to read the ligatures, get a quick-reference Greek ligature guide.

 

A word about the "majority text." Eusebius of Caesarea, who died in the year 339, tells us in "Ad Marinum" that the "longer ending of Mark," now numbered chapter 16, verses 9-20, was absent "in almost all the copies" of the gospel of Mark, which he also called the "accurate" copies. Thus we can say, that though a majority of late copies now contain these verses, the "majority text" used to omit them. This shows the value of Codices Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. They show us what the Greek text was like in the 4th century, which is more important than what it developed into later. Thus, what value is there in a "majority text" derived from counting up only the recent and late copies, when in the 3rd and 4th centuries, the majority of manuscripts read so differently than the present majority?

 

The conclusion is, most Textual Criticism scholars agree, we must "weigh" each manuscript and witness, not "count" them. Thus, the testimony of Codex Vaticanus is more important than the testimony of 4,000 cursives from the much later centuries.

 

This is what I have maintained for some time; that scribes were far more afraid to OMIT anything, however suspect it was, than to ADD something to the text.

 

Which is another prop for the tenet, that the shorter reading is generally to be preferred; it has that going for it, that scribes were more afraid to remove anything than to add something.

I was recently referred to John William Burgon, and his book, "The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors established., pp. 41-51. In it Burgon attempts to lessen the impact of the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome about the the longer ending of Mark not being found in the accurate copies, and being absent in almost all the copies of Mark.

Burgon spends some time questioning the authenticity of the document provided by Cardinal Mai entitled "Quaestiones ad Marinum," and its quotations of Eusebius. Why? Because it appears to be a CONDENSED version of Eusebius, Burgon says. But then, on p. 44, Burgon says, "Let it, however, be candidly admitted that there seems to be no reason for supposing that whenever the lost work of Eusebius comes to light, (and it has been seen within about 300 years,) it will exhibit anything essentially different from what is contained in the famous passage which has given rise to so much debate,..."

In the succeeding pages, Burgon's main point seems to be that Eusebius is playing Devil's advocate, that "some may say that..." Well, Eusebius does not contradict or refute or dismiss those statements from such advocate.

Burgon's purpose was to show that Eusebius did not question the authenticity of the passage. In fact, Burgon himself quotes Eusebius, on p. 45, where Eusebius says about the last 12 verses of Mark, Καὶ δὴ τοῦδε τοῦ μέρους συγχωρουμένου εἶναι ἀληθοῦς, προσήκει τὸν νοῦν διερμηνεύειν τοῦ ἀναγνώσματος - "Well then, allowing this portion to be really genuine, our business is to interpret the sense of the passage." (KAI DH TOUDE MEROUS SUGCWROUMENOU EINAI ALHQOUS, PROSHKEI TON NOUN DIEREMHNEUEIN TOU ANAGNWSMATOS)

Thus, Burgon himself shows us that Eusebius did in fact question the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark. Eusebius only allows for the sake of argument that it is "really genuine." That does not sound to me like Eusebius believed it to be genuine.


Wieland Willker's textual criticism blog
Textual Criticism Encyclopedia
Evengelical Textual Criticism Blog
Textual Criticism Discussion Board

Site Navigation Links:

Download free e-books Bible, Greek, textual criticism
Download new Bible translation
Compare Bible Translations Differences
Table of N.T. Greek manuscripts
Bible Translation Blog
Birth of Islam
King James Onlyism
NIV Bible Quiz
Links
Textual Criticism Exercises
Gay marriage
Unicode issues
School prayer
Samples of unicode fonts
Read the Gospel of Matthew online
Read the Gospel of Mark online
Read the Gospel of Luke online
Read the Gospel of John online
Read the Revelation of John online
Read the First Epistle of John online
YouTube music videos that I like
Forum - Discussion board
Online Bible to read
Free Bible to download, several versions
Bible Verses by Topic
King James Bible
Spotlight Bibletranslation Store
Donate

http://www.christiantop1000.com/cgi-bin/1000/counter.cgi?id=bibletranslationws