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.
I have published on Amazon two editions of my translation of the gospel of Matthew. They alternate verse by verse between the Greek text and my English translation. They have 671 footnotes each. I have footnoted with critical apparatus most all the meaningful variants between the NA28 text and the Robinson-Pierpont Greek text.
Eclectic Edition of the Gospel of Matthew, with my Greek text being unique. I follow more Byzantine readings than does the Tyndale House GNT, but on the other hand there are a few times the TH follows the Byz where I do not. I have a couple readings not found in any of the above. The U.S. price on Amazon is $6.89.
I have uploaded a new PDF document, containing the General Epistles of the New Testament. It has the Robinson-Pierpont 2017 Byzantine Majority Text alternating verse by verse with my new English translation. PDF 3.5 MB, 530 footnotes.
The footnotes contain not only translator’s notes, but extensive notes covering the Greek manuscript variants, including the readings of the following seven (7) Greek New Testament editions: the Textus Receptus, Scrivener 1894 Ed.; Antoniades 1904; Byzantine Greek New Testament (Wilbur Pickering’s Family 35 text); the NA28; the SBL; the Robinson-Pierpont 2017, and the Tyndale House Greek New Testament (2017). Shown in this post is a screen capture of one of the footnotes.
This document has replaced the individual PDF files of those books James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude that had the Robinson-Pierpont Greek text with them.