REVELATION 1:5 lu,santi h`ma/j evk {A} Instead of lu,santi the Textus Receptus, following the later uncials (P 046), most of the minuscules, and several early versions (itgig vg copbo eth), reads lou,santi. The reading lu,santi is to be preferred because it has superior manuscript support (î18 a A... [ Continue Reading ]
REVELATION 1:6 eivj tou.j aivw/naj @tw/n aivw,nwn# {C} The words tw/n aivw,nwn are absent from î18 A P about thirty minuscules copbo Andrewa, but are present in a C 046 1 1006 1611 1854 2053 itgig, h, ar vg syrph, h arm eth Andrewbav, c, p Arethas. It is difficult to decide whether the shorter text... [ Continue Reading ]
REVELATION 1:8 +W {A} After +W 2 the Textus Receptus, following a* 1 (2344) itgig, ar vg _al_, adds avrch. kai. te,loj, and twenty other minuscules add h` avrch. kai. to. te,loj. If the longer text were original no good reason can be found to account for the shorter text, whereas the presence of t... [ Continue Reading ]
REVELATION 1:15 pepurwme,nhj {C} Although pepurwme,nhj is without syntactical concord in the sentence, it was preferred by the Committee not only because it is rather well attested (A C Primasius) but chiefly because it best explains the origin of the other readings. In order to remove the grammat... [ Continue Reading ]