¹ tc The shorter reading adopted here has superior ms support (א A C P 2053 al latt co), while the inclusion of “your works and” (τὰ ἔργα σου καί, ta erga sou kai) before “where you reside” is supported by the Byzantine witnesses and is evidently a secondary attempt to harmonize the passage with 2:2, 19; 3:1, 8, 15.

² tc The ms evidence for γυναῖκα (gunaika, “woman”) alone includes {א C P 1611 2053 pc lat}. The ms evidence for the addition of “your” (σου, sou) includes A 1006 2351 Ï^K pc sy. With the pronoun, the text reads “your wife, Jezebel” instead of “that woman, Jezebel.” In Revelation, A C are the most important mss, along with א Ì⁴⁷ (which only reads in portions of chapters 9-17) 1006 1611 2053; in this instance, the external evidence slightly favors the shorter reading. But internally, it gains strength. The longer reading implies the idea that the angel in 2:18 is the bishop or leader of the church in Thyatira. The pronoun “your” (σου) is used four times in vv. 19-20 and may have been the cause for the scribe copying it again. Further, once the monarchical episcopate was in vogue (beginning in the 2nd century) scribes might have been prone to add “your” here.

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.

⁵ tc The textual problem here between the present tense βασιλεύουσιν (basileuousin, “they are reigning”; so A 1006 1611 Ï^K pc) and the future βασιλεύσουσιν (basileusousin, “they will reign”; so א 1854 2053 Ï^A pc lat co) is a difficult one. Both readings have excellent support. On the one hand, the present tense seems to be the harder reading in this context. On the other hand, codex A elsewhere mistakes the future for the present (20:6). Further, the lunar sigma in uncial script could have been overlooked by some scribes, resulting in the present tense. All things considered, there is a slight preference for the future.

² tc Several mss (Ì⁴⁷ א 1 1006 1611 2351 Ï^K pc) have the conjunction “for” (γάρ, gar) here so that the phrase reads: “for they are blameless.” Other important mss (A C P 1854 2053 al lat) lack the word. The shorter reading is to be preferred since the scribes were more likely to make the connection explicit through the addition of “for” than they would have been to omit the conjunction. As it is, the passage without the conjunction makes good sense and evokes a very somber tone.

² tc Most mss (Ì47 א* Ï sa) lack ἄλλον (allon, “another”) here, but the support for it is stronger (Ì^115vid א² A C P 051 1006 1611 1841 2053 2329 al latt sy bo). The problem that its inclusion represents is that there is no reference to any other angel in the immediate context (the last mention was in 11:15). In this instance, the longer reading is harder. The word was probably intentionally omitted in order to resolve the tension; less likely, it might have been accidentally omitted since its spelling is similar to “angel” (ἄγγελος, angelos).

¹ tc It appears that “dipped” (βεβαμμένον, bebammenon), supported by several uncials and other witnesses (A 051 Ï), is the original reading. Due to the lack of the preposition “in” (ἐν, en) after the verb (βεβαμμένον αἵματι, bebammenon {aimati), and also probably because of literary allusions to Isa 63:3, several mss and versions seem to have changed the text to “sprinkled” (either ῥεραντισμένον [rJerantismenon] in P 2329 al; ἐρραντισμένον [errantismenon] in 1006 1841; ἐρραμμένον [errammenon] in 2053 2062; or ῥεραμμένον [rJerammenon] in 1611; or in one case περιρεραμμένον [perirerammenon] in א^[2]). The reading most likely to give rise to the others is “dipped.”

¹ tc The “therefore” (οὖν, oun) is not found in א 2053 2329 2351 Ï^A or the Latin mss. It is, however, included in impressive witnesses such as {A C 046 1006 1611 sy^p,h co}. Though the conjunction looks at first glance like a scribal clarification, its omission may be explained on the basis of its similarity to the last three letters of the verb “repent” (μετανόησον, metanohson; since οὖν is a postpositive conjunction in Greek, the final three letters of the verb [-σον, -son] would have been immediately followed by ουν). A scribe could have simply passed over the conjunction in his copy when he saw the last three letters of the imperative verb. A decision is difficult, however, because of the motivation to add to the text and the quality of witnesses that lack the conjunction.

⁶ tc There is good ms evidence for the inclusion of “seven” (ἑπτά, Jepta; ̲⁴ א 2053 2351 Ï^K). There is equally good ms support for the omission of the term (A 1006 1611 Ï^A pc). It may have been accidentally added due to its repeated presence in the immediately preceding phrases, or it may have been intentionally added to maintain the symmetry of the phrases or more likely to harmonize the phrase with 1:4; 3:1; 4:5. Or it may have been accidentally deleted by way of homoioteleuton (τὰ ἑπτά, ta Jepta). A decision is difficult in this instance. NA²⁷ also does not find the problem easy to solve, placing the word in brackets to indicate doubts as to its authenticity.

² tc Many mss omit the phrase “it was given to make war with the saints and to overcome them” (Ì⁴⁷ A C 2053 Ï^A sa). It is, however, found in Ì^115vid א 051 1006 (1611) 1841 (1854) 2329 2344 2351 (Ï^K) lat sy^ph,(h) bo. Although the ms evidence is somewhat in favor of the shorter reading, the support of ̹¹⁵ (a recently-discovered ms) for the longer reading balances things out. Normally, the shorter reading should be given preference. However, in an instance in which homoioteleuton could play a role, caution must be exercised. In this passage, accidental omission is quite likely. That this could have happened seems apparent from the two occurrences of the identical phrase “and it was given to him” (καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, kai edoqh autw) in v. 7. The scribe’s eye skipped over the first καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ and went to the second, hence creating an accidental omission of eleven words.

⁵ tc Several mss (including 1611 1854 2053 Ï^K pc) read “sexual immorality on/of the earth” (πορνείας τῆς γῆς, porneia" th" gh") instead of “her sexual immorality.” Other mss (א sy^h** [co]) read “her sexual immorality and the earth’s” (πορνείας αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς γῆς, porneia" aujth" kai th" gh"). The translation is a rendering of πορνείας αὐτῆς, found in {A 1006 2344 al}. It seems that the first reading “sexuality immorality on/of the earth” was a scribal mistake in which letters may have been confused (auths would have been read as thsghs), or was perhaps influenced by the presence of “of the world” (τῆς γῆς) at the end of v. 5. The original wording seems to be “her sexual immorality”; codex א has conflated the two readings.

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.

³ tc The reading “set free” (λύσαντι, lusanti) has better ms support (̹⁸ א A C 1611 2050 2329 2351 Ï^A sy) than its rival, λούσαντι (lousanti, “washed”; found in P 1006 1841 1854 2053 2062 Ï^K lat bo). Internally, it seems that the reading “washed” could have arisen in at least one of three ways: (1) as an error of hearing (both “released” and “washed” are pronounced similarly in Greek); (2) an error of sight (both “released” and “washed” look very similar – a difference of only one letter – which could have resulted in a simple error during the copying of a ms); (3) through scribal inability to appreciate that the Hebrew preposition ב can be used with a noun to indicate the price paid for something. Since the author of Revelation is influenced significantly by a Semitic form of Greek (e.g., 13:10), and since the Hebrew preposition “in” (ב) can indicate the price paid for something, and is often translated with the preposition “in” (ἐν, en) in the LXX, the author may have tried to communicate by the use of ἐν the idea of a price paid for something. That is, John was trying to say that Christ delivered us at the price of his own blood. This whole process, however, may have been lost on a later scribe, who being unfamiliar with Hebrew, found the expression “delivered in his blood” too difficult, and noticing the obvious similarities between λύσαντι and λούσαντι, assumed an error and then proceeded to change the text to “washed in his blood” – a thought more tolerable in his mind. Both readings, of course, are true to scripture; the current question is what the author wrote in this verse.

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.

² tc ‡ Several mss (א A C 1006* 1611 1841 2030 Ï^K), including the best witnesses, read “have fallen” (πεπτώκασιν or πέπτωκαν [peptwkasin or peptwkan]). The singular πέπτωκεν (peptwken), which is better grammatically with the neuter plural subject πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (panta ta eqnh, “all the nations”), is read by 1854 2062 pc; 2042 pc read πεπότικεν (pepotiken). A few mss (1006^c 2329 pc latt sy^h) read “have drunk” (πέπωκαν/πεπώκασιν, pepwkan/pepwkasin); the singular πέπωκεν (pepwken) is read by P 051 1 2053* al. The more difficult reading and that which has the best ms support is “have fallen.” That it is not too difficult is evidenced by the fact that the great majority of Byzantine minuscules, which have a tendency to smooth out problems, left it stand as is. Nonetheless, it is somewhat difficult (TCGNT 683 says that this reading is “scarcely suitable in the context”), and for that reason certain mss seem to have changed it to “have drunk” to agree with the idea of “wine” (οἴνου, oinou). One can understand how this could happen: A scribe coming to the text and seeing the term “wine” expects a verb of drinking. When he sees “have fallen” and knows that in Greek the verbs “have fallen” and “have drunk” are spelled similarly, he concludes that there has been a slip of the pen in the ms he is using, which he then seeks to correct back to the “have drunk” reading. This appears to be more reasonable than to conclude that three early uncials (i.e., א A C) as well as a great number of other witnesses all felt the need to change “have drunk” (πέπωκαν) to “have fallen” (πέπτωκαν), even if “fallen” occurs in the immediate context (“fallen, fallen, [ἔπεσεν ἔπεσεν, epesen epesen] Babylon the great” in the preceding verse). The preferred reading, on both external and internal grounds, is “have fallen,” and thus the Seer intends to focus on the effects of wine, namely, a drunken stupor.