¹ tc Many mss, some of them important and early ([א] A P 33 81 323 945 1241 1739 pm bo), add καὶ δυνάμεως (kai dunamew"; “and of power”) here. The shorter reading is supported by Ì⁷² B K L Ψ 049 pm). Although the evidence is evenly divided, the longer reading looks to be an explanatory or liturgical expansion on the text and for this reason should be considered secondary.

² tc A few important mss (א* B sa) lack ἐπισκοποῦντες (episkopounte", “exercising oversight”), but the participle enjoys otherwise good ms support (Ì⁷² א² A P Ψ 33 1739 Ï lat). A decision is difficult because normally the shorter reading is preferred, especially when found in excellent witnesses. However, in this instance the omission may be due to a hesitation among some scribes to associate oversight with elders, since the later church viewed overseer/bishop as a separate office from elder.

⁴ tc The omission of “my” (μου, mou) after “God” (θεοῦ, qeou) is well attested, supported by א A C and the Andreas of Caesarea group of Byzantine mss (Ï^A). Its addition in 1611, the Ï^K group, latt, and others, seems to be evidence of a purposeful conforming of the text to 3:2 and the four occurrences of “my God” (θεοῦ μου) in 3:12.

² tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support ({א A C P 1611}) and its omission seems to come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, ercou) as mentioned in the text-critical note on 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.

³ tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support ({א A C P 1611}) and its omission seems to have come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, ercou) in 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.

² tc The reading “and I looked” (καὶ εἶδον, kai eidon) or some slight variation (e.g., ἶδον, idon) has excellent ms support ({א A C P 1611}) and its omission seems to have come through the mss that have already placed “and look” (καὶ ἴδε or καὶ βλέπε [kai ide or kai blepe]) after the verb “come” (ἔρχου, ercou) in 6:1. Thus, for these copyists it was redundant to add “and I looked” again.

¹ tc Most mss (A Ï bo) change the pronoun “their” to “his” (αὐτοῦ, autou) in order to bring the text in line with the mention of the one seated on the throne in the immediately preceding verse, and to remove the ambiguity about whose wrath is in view here. The reading αὐτῶν (autwn, “their”) is well supported by א C 1611 1854 2053 2329 2344 pc latt sy. On both internal and external grounds, it should be regarded as original.

² tc ‡ Several key mss (Ì⁴⁷ א¹ A 0207 1611 2053 2344 pc lat sy^h co) lack the word τεσσάρων (tessarwn, “four”) before κεράτων (keratwn, “horns”). The word seems to have been added by scribes because a “horned” altar (described in the OT [Exod 30:2, 10]) could have only four “horns” or projections at the corners. NA²⁷ includes the word in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

⁴ tc ‡ Several mss (A 051 1611 1854 2053 2344 2351 Ï^K) read the plural ὀνόματα (onomata, “[blasphemous] names”), while the singular ὄνομα (onoma, “name”) has somewhat better support (Ì⁴⁷ א C 1006 1841 2329 Ï^A). The plural reading seems motivated by the fact that what is written is written “on its heads.” In the least, it is a clarifying reading. NA²⁷ puts the plural in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

² tc There are several different variants comprising a textual problem involving “second” (δεύτερος, deuteros). First, several mss (A 1 2329 Ï^K) read “another, a second angel” (ἄλλος δεύτερος ἄγγελος, allo" deutero" angelo"). Second, other mss (Ì⁴⁷ א* 1006 1841 1854 pc) read just “another, a second” (ἄλλος δεύτερος). Third, the reading “another angel” (ἄλλος ἄγγελος) is supported by a few Greek mss and some versional evidence (69 pc ar vg). Fourth, several mss (א² [C reads δεύτερον instead of δεύτερος] 051 1611 2053 2344 Ï^A) support the reading “another, a second angel” (ἄλλος ἄγγελος δεύτερος). The reading that most likely gave rise to the others is the fourth. The first reading attempts to smooth out the grammar by placing the adjective in front of the noun. The second reading may have dropped out the “angel” on the basis of its similarity to “another” (ἄλλος). The third reading either intentionally or accidentally left out the word “second.” In any event, this is weakly attested and should not be given much consideration. (If, however, this reading had had good support, with “second” floating, and with “third” in the text in 14:9, one could possibly see δεύτερος as a motivated reading. But without sufficient support for the third reading, the one thing that is most certain is that δεύτερος was part of the original text here.) It is difficult to account for the rise of the other readings if “second” is not original. And the undisputed use of “third” (τρίτος, tritos) in 14:9 may be another indicator that the adjective “second” was in the original text. Finally, the fourth reading is the more difficult and therefore, in this case, to be accepted as the progenitor of the others.

¹ tc The MT does not have “thirty.” A number appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text here, since as it stands the MT (literally, “a son of a year”) must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign! The KJV, attempting to resolve this, reads “Saul reigned one year,” but that is not the normal meaning of the Hebrew text represented by the MT. Although most LXX mss lack the entire verse, some Greek mss have “thirty years” here (while others have “one year” like the MT). The Syriac Peshitta has Saul’s age as twenty-one. But this seems impossible to harmonize with the implied age of Saul’s son Jonathan in the following verse. Taking into account the fact that in v. 2 Jonathan was old enough to be a military leader, some scholars prefer to supply in v. 1 the number forty (cf. ASV, NASB). The present translation (“thirty”) is a possible but admittedly uncertain proposal based on a few Greek mss and followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NIV, NCV, NLT). Other English versions simply supply ellipsis marks for the missing number (e.g., NAB, NRSV).

² tc The reading here is based on a few Hebrew mss and the Syriac and Arabic versions. The majority of Hebrew mss and most of the versions read “At the beginning of the reign of Josiah’s son, Jehoiakim king of Judah” as in 26:1. The LXX does not have this whole verse. It has long been recognized that the text of 27:1 is textually corrupt. The date formula in the majority of Hebrew mss at 27:1 is contradictory both with the context of the passage which deals with an event in the reign of Zedekiah (see vv. 3, 13 and v. 20 which presupposes that Jeconiah, Jehoiakim’s son, has been taken captive [i.e., after the death of Jehoiakim!]) and the date formula in 28:1 which refers to an event “in that same year” and then qualifies it with “Early in the reign of Zedekiah.” Hence it is preferable to read “Zedekiah” here in place of “Jehoiakim” and explain the error in the Hebrew manuscripts as an erroneous copying of 26:1.

¹ tc Instead of “in Isaiah the prophet” the majority of mss read “in the prophets” (A W ˹³ Ï Ir^lat). Except for Irenaeus (2nd century), the earliest evidence for this is thus from the 5th (or possibly late 4th) century (W A). The difficulty of Irenaeus is that he wrote in Greek but has been preserved largely in Latin. His Greek remains have “in Isaiah the prophet.” Only the later Latin translation has “in the prophets.” The KJV reading is thus in harmony with the majority of late mss. On the other hand, the witnesses for “in Isaiah the prophet” (either with the article before Isaiah or not) are early and geographically widespread: א B D L Δ Θ Ë¹ 33 565 700 892 1241 2427 al sy^p co Ir. This evidence runs deep into the 2nd century, is widespread, and is found in the most important Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean witnesses. The “Isaiah” reading has a better external pedigree in every way. It has the support of the earliest and best witnesses from all the texttypes that matter. Moreover it is the harder reading, since the quotation in the first part of the verse appears to be from Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1, with the quotation from Isa 40:3 coming in the next verse. The reading of the later mss seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty.

² tc The translation follows most mss, including early and important ones ({א A B L}). Some copyists, aware that the purification law applied to women only, produced mss ({76 it^pt vg} [though the Latin word eius could be either masculine or feminine]) that read “her purification.” But the extant evidence for an unambiguous “her” is shut up to one late minuscule ({codex 76}) and a couple of patristic citations of dubious worth ({Pseudo-Athanasius} whose date is unknown, and the {Catenae in euangelia Lucae et Joannis}, edited by J. A. Cramer. The Catenae is a work of collected patristic sayings whose exact source is unknown [thus, it could come from a period covering hundreds of years]). A few other witnesses (D pc lat) read “his purification.” The KJV has “her purification,” following Beza’s Greek text (essentially a revision of Erasmus’). Erasmus did not have it in any of his five editions. Most likely Beza put in the feminine form αὐτῆς (auths) because, recognizing that the eius found in several Latin mss could be read either as a masculine or a feminine, he made the contextually more satisfying choice of the feminine. Perhaps it crept into one or two late Greek witnesses via this interpretive Latin back-translation. So the evidence for the feminine singular is virtually nonexistent, while the masculine singular αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) was a clear scribal blunder. There can be no doubt that “their purification” is the authentic reading.

¹ tc The majority of later mss (C³ Θ Ψ 078 Ë^1,13 Ï) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (A^c D 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (Ì^66,75 א B C* T pc co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

³ tc A number of important mss (Ì^66c א A B C* D K L W Ψ Ë¹³ 33 565 579 892 al lat) have ὅτι (Joti) here, while the majority lack it (Ì^66* C² Θ Ï). Should the ὅτι be included or omitted? The external evidence is significantly stronger for the longer reading. Most Alexandrian and Western mss favor inclusion (it is a little unusual for the Alexandrian to favor the longer reading), while most Byzantine mss favor omission (again, a little unusual). However, the reading of Ì^66*, which aligns with the Byzantine, needs to be given some value. At the same time, the scribe of this papyrus was known for freely omitting and adding words, and the fact that the ms was corrected discounts its testimony here. But because the shorter reading is out of character for the Byzantine text, the shorter reading (omitting the ὅτι) may well be authentic. Internally, the question comes down to whether the shorter reading is more difficult or not. And here, it loses the battle, for it seems to be a clarifying omission (so TCGNT 206). R. E. Brown is certainly right when he states: “all in all, the translation without ὅτι makes the best sense” (John [AB], 2:620). But this tacitly argues for the authenticity of the word. Thus, on both external and internal grounds, the ὅτι should be regarded as authentic.

⁴ tc A number of significant mss have “of God” after “word.” Although τοῦ θεοῦ (tou qeou) is amply supported in the Alexandrian and Western texts (א A B [D*] P Ψ 048^vid 075 0278 33 81 1175 al lat co), the omission is difficult to explain as either an intentional deletion or unintentional oversight. To be sure, the pedigree of the witnesses is not nearly as great for the shorter reading (Ì⁴⁶ D² 1739 1881 Ï), but it explains well the rise of the other reading. Further, it explains the rise of κυρίου (kuriou, “of the Lord”), the reading of F and G (for if these mss had followed a Vorlage with τοῦ θεοῦ, κυρίου would not have been expected). Further, τοῦ θεοῦ is in different locations among the mss; such dislocations are usually signs of scribal additions to the text. Thus, the Byzantine text and a few other witnesses here have the superior reading, and it should be accepted as the original.

⁷ tc Grk ἐστάθη (estaqh, “he stood”). The reading followed by the translation is attested by the better mss (Ì⁴⁷ א A C 1854 2344 2351 pc lat sy^h) while the majority of mss (051 Ï vg^mss sy^ph co) have the reading ἐστάθην (estaqhn, “I stood”). Thus, the majority of mss make the narrator, rather than the dragon of 12:17, the subject of the verb. The first person reading is most likely an assimilation to the following verb in 13:1, “I saw.” The reading “I stood” was introduced either by accident or to produce a smoother flow, giving the narrator a vantage point on the sea’s edge from which to observe the beast rising out of the sea in 13:1. But almost everywhere else in the book, the phrase καὶ εἶδον (kai eidon, “and I saw”) marks a transition to a new vision, without reference to the narrator’s activity. On both external and internal grounds, it is best to adopt the third person reading, “he stood.”

⁴ tc There are several problems in this verse. It seems that according to the ms evidence the first two phrases (i.e., “and a haunt for every unclean spirit, and a haunt for every unclean bird” [καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς πνεύματος ἀκαθάρτου καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς ὀρνέου ἀκαθάρτου, kai fulakh panto" pneumato" akaqartou kai fulakh panto" orneou akaqartou]) are to be regarded as authentic, though there are some ms discrepancies. The similar beginnings (καὶ φυλακὴ παντός) and endings (ἀκαθάρτου) of each phrase would easily account for some mss omitting one or the other phrase. The third phrase (“a haunt for every unclean animal” [καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς θηρίου ἀκαθάρτου, kai fulakh panto" qhriou akaqartou]), however, is more problematic since it is missing in several important mss (א C 051 Ï). The passage as a whole, including the third phrase, seems to be an allusion to Isa 13:21 and 34:11. It seems reasonable, in such a case, to assume that since there is good ms evidence to support the third phrase (A 1611 2329 al), it probably dropped out of certain mss because of its similarity to the two preceding clauses. It is the presence of all three phrases in the original that most likely gave rise to the divergent ms evidence extant today.

³ tc Several mss (א² P 1611 2053 2344 pc Ï^K lat ) read “the Lord our God” (κύριος ὁ θεός ἡμῶν, kurio" Jo qeo" Jhmwn). Other important mss (A 1006 1841 pc), however, omit the “our” (ἡμῶν). Further, certain mss (051 Ï^A) omit “Lord” (κύριος), while others (including א*) change the order of the statement to “God our Lord” (ὁ θεός ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν). The expression “the Lord God, the All-Powerful” occurs in 6 other places in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 21:22) and the pronoun “our” is never used. Scribes familiar with the expression in this book, and especially with the frequent κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ (kurio" Jo qeo" Jo pantokratwr; “the Lord God, the All-Powerful”) in the OT Prophets (LXX; cf. Jer 39:19; Hos 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:8, 14, 15, 16, 27; 9:5, 6, 15; Nah 3:5; Zech 10:3), would naturally omit the pronoun. Its presence may have arisen due to liturgical motivations or to conform to the expression “our God” in 19:1, 5, but this seems much less likely than an aversion to using the pronoun here and only here in the Greek Bible in the fuller title κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ.