Tag Archives: Codex A

Comparing Transcriptions

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.

You can download my Revelation with Greek pdf here.

Mark of the Beast 666

I have an interesting book by an ex-Muslim terrorist who has become a Christian. In his book he puts forth a theory on what glyphs looked like which the apostle John originally wrote in Revelation 13:18 for the mark of the beast. His theory is a visual one, in which you take the Greek abbreviation for 666 found in many of the manuscripts and turn the letters on their side. So take χξς and turn the letters leftward onto their sides, and it looks quite a lot like a famous slogan in Arabic script that is central to Islam.

I am quite sure the theory is not correct, but here are snips of the four earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse that we have:

The abbreviation χ̅ξ̅ϛ̅ for 666 in Papyrus 47:


The abbreviation χ̅̅ι̅ϛ̅ for 616 in Papyrus 115:


The number 666 written out in Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ) as εξακοσιαι εξηκοντα ἕξ


The number 666 written out in Codex Alexandrinus (A) as εξακοσιοι εξήκοντα ἕξ:

I have an updated footnote on this in my Revelation PDF. Download it here.