I have published the Apocalypse of John in paper and ink:
• large size – 8.25 x 11 inches • large font – 12 point font • 168 pages • 518 footnotes • 82 endnotes • 3 tables • Bargain price! $7.59, €6.93
A new English translation from the ancient Greek, the English text alternating verse by verse with the Greek text; with footnotes pertaining to translation issues and pertaining to Greek textual variants. This latter “critical apparatus” cites 86 Greek manuscripts, 6 Greek New Testament editions, as well as early versions and Fathers. The editions collated are the NA28, SBL, TH (Tyndale House), Robinson-Pierpont, Byzantine Greek, Antoniades, and the Textus Receptus. When the dozens of editions of the Textus Receptus disagree, this is noted. At the end of the book are several tables, including a list of all handwritten Greek manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John.
In the process of finalizing my Revelation with Greek document for publishing, I am searching for every ? in the footnotes, in order to determine a more definite conclusion for the critical apparatus if possible, and eliminate the ?. There was a ? after a reading of MS GA 1888 in Revelation 2:13. This is an 11th century minuscule residing in Jerusalem, with the reference number 181 in Hoskier’s collation in Volume 2 of “Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse.” As you can see in the attached image snips, Hoskier says 181* (original hand) reads αντειπασ and then notes that the word και following was erased.
Whereas the Münster transcription site says the MS reads ἀντίπας, with no indication of a corrector regarding that. The blue text shows that και is the original hand, and a java script mouse-over window shows that a corrector erased και.
But here is a snip of the actual manuscript, GA1888:
I think Hoskier is correct that there is a correction regarding αντιπας. I am told that what looks like a circumflex accent above it may be some kind of indicator from the scribe to read a marginal note about a correction. So, I still have an unanswered question. Which is the original reading of 1888- ἀντίπας or ἀντεῖπας? I certainly understand why Hoskier left a ? after it. For comparison to the uncials, ℵ* C P 046 RP TH read Αντιπας, and ℵ² A SBL NA28 read Αντειπας. Would the correction be more likely to have moved toward 046 and the RP majority text? (Note that the Tyndale House ed. differs from the SBL and NA28.) This variant is not treated in the footnotes of the NA28 nor of the UBS5. However, there is a footnote in the Tyndale House edition that does reference Antipas, and it states that Codex A reads Αντιπας, whereas Codex A definitely reads Αντειπας. See image of Codex A below, where Antipas is the last word in the image. Perhaps the Münster and Tyndale House editors are considering ἀντίπας versus ἀντεῖπας as a trivial difference in spelling of the same word, and not worth noting. (Except that elsewhere, the Münster site does note this kind of difference.) One problem with Codex A is that its Π, Pi, usually has a very faint or even invisible top crossbar, and so, for example, here with Antipas, it looks like three Iotas in a row and then AC.
There are twenty-four or so textual variants in the Textus Receptus text of the Revelation of John which have extremely slim or zero Greek manuscript support. Usually, two handwritten Greek manuscripts agree with these readings. These MSS are 296 and 2049. They used to be known as 57 and 141 respectively.
However, H. C. Hoskier, who did a two-volume investigation of all the manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John, says this about them in Text 2, p. 156, lines 26,27: “This MS 187 with 57 and 141 must not be accorded any weight whatsoever. They are brought into the record because of their very connection with the printed text.” See also Text 2, p. 156, lines 26,27, where he says “… 57 et 141 ex ed. typ. exscripti.” The Latin means “copied from printed edition(s).”
In their own pages which describe each, Hoskier had this to say. About 296 (old 57) he says in Text 1, p. 179, “I suppose I ought to eliminate 57 from the list altogether.” And on p. 180 Hoskier says, “So 57 becomes Colinaeus.”
About 2049, (old 141) he says in Text 1, p. 474, that MS 2049 is most like Erasmus’ 4th Edition, because the whole manuscript is word for word to it, except for one word, in 22:21, ἡμῶν for ὑμῶν. Which could easily have been an error made by the copyist when copying Erasmus. This exact variant is one of the most common mistakes scribes made throughout the Greek New Testament. There are a few uses of contractions, which differs from Erasmus not adding up to a word of difference, but that is to be expected from a scribe who was hand copying such a large document. It is reasonable to conclude that 2049 is a handwritten copy of Erasmus’ 4th edition (1527).
Below are snips from his book. I have also added these images to my Revelation with Greek document which you can download here.
I discovered an interesting reading in minuscule GA 2329 in the last two verses of the Revelation of John. This was prompted by the fact that the UBS5 apparatus has a “vid” next to 2329. So I looked at the photograph of the manuscript itself.
Most manuscripts say something like “Yes, come Lord Jesus. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all the saints. Amen.” But 2329 skips “May the grace of our Lord Jesus” and instead says ερχου κυριε ιησου χριστε μετα των αγιων σου αμην – “Come Lord Jesus Christ with your saints. Amen.”
Though I still have a job doing something I don’t want to do, I now have a little more spare time than I did the last few years. Also, I moved to the state of Florida. I am currently working on 3 projects at once:
1.) Revising and updating my translation of the Apocalypse of John, or the Book of Revelation. My original edition I did about 15 years ago, and it still refers to the UBS4 and NA27. I am updating the GNT editions cited to include the SBL and Tyndale House editions, and of course UBS5 and NA28, as well as the BG, family 35 and Antoniades here and there. In addition, I am eliminating the accentuation of the Greek in the textual variant footnotes, since the direction of the accents would be technically incorrect when outside of the sentence and punctuation of the actual Bible text, and the early manuscripts did not contain them. This is what the Nestle-Aland editions do in their footnotes. This is all in preparation for publishing on Amazon.
2. Revising and updating my translation of the gospel of Matthew, since, again, my original was done 20 years ago or more, and I have learned much since then, and also become less closed to the Byzantine text stream. Like with Revelation, I am adding citation to the SBL and TH editions, but also adding many more textual variants in comparison to the Robinson-Pierpont text, as I am simultaneously creating a Robinson-Pierpont (RP) edition. This is all in preparation for publishing on Amazon.
Author: Jan Krans, Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, an expert on Erasmus, refutes Thomas Holland, especially exposing his lack of scholarship regarding the last verses of Revelation which Erasmus back-translated from Latin. Especially Revelation 22:19. Textus Receptus Onlyists and King James Onlyists rely on the “scholarship” of other King James Onlyists, so never come to the knowledge of the truth. This document is a PDF, 2 MB in size. Download Krans Refutation of Holland.
Please share this post about Krans Refutation of Holland.
Revelation 22:19, the tree of life versus book of life
Demand has been expressed, that I add a complete Textual Criticism apparatus in my Revelation work concerning the textual variant in Revelation 22:19, the tree of life versus book of life. Especially, that I consult Hoskier’s work on this for early Versions and Church fathers and Church writers.
Nevertheless, I have added that data to my footnotes in my Revelation works, and uploaded them to my “new Bible translation” page. If you want to get right to the footnotes about Revelation 22:19, the tree of life versus book of life, you can also download them directly from here: