Textus Receptus Academy - Revelation 11:17-18 - Luke Carpenter - Alexandrinus - Revelation 4:11 conflation

Steven Avery

Luke Carpenter
Rodney Durrett
I don't really know where I stand on this issue. The most compelling thing that makes me think it is 4th century is the readings it exhibits in Revelation 11:17-18. It omits "ο ερχομενος" from "και ο ερχομενος" which is only followed by P47, 0308vid, C, and 2344, none of which were known in Simonides' time. In the next verse, it says "τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους" (instead of τοις μικροις και τοις μεγαλοις) which is only followed by P47, P115vid, A, C, 2329, 2344, and 2351. To me, it seems suspiciously lucky that Simonides happened to forge 2 very ancient readings right next to each other, neither of which he could have known about.... I'll take a look, but those two ancient readings in Revelation really seem to imply to me that it is ancient. There is no way Simonides could have accidentally stumbled upon those and many others





Steven Avery
Luke Carpenter -
Thanks for the variant thoughts.
we really do not know what is and was sitting in Mount Athos, the land of manuscripts.
Also some theories have Tischendorf influencing the NT as late as 1844-45. And you will see that at least one of those ms. was one he worked on in 1843. Might be interesting to see if it is the same as Sinaiticus on other ultra-minority variants.
Verse 17, two words are missing from the TR text, or a kai is in compared to the W-H text, this is not very compelling. Omissions happen frequently.
The second variant is even in Alexandrinus, likely also the Zosimas edition, similarly not very compelling.


Luke Carpenter
Steven Avery Thanks for the feedback. With v17, yes omissions happen frequently (most mss omit και ο ερχομενος) but only ones with ancient roots omit the full phrase and retain the 1st word. The v18 is also in Alexandrinus, but that is the point. The variant is only found in ancient mss or mss with ancient roots (2329, 2344, 2351). There are many more examples that when considered imply that even if Sinaiticus is fake, it was still based on an ancient text. In which case, the effort to prove it is fake would be pointless


Steven Avery
Luke, Simonides specifically mentioned both Alexandrinus and the Zosimas Bible, which is a c. 1820 printed edition with roots in Grabe’s Alexandrinus edition. Zosimas is available online today, however it might be only a TR text in Revelation. By Alexandrinus, it is likely that Simonides was referencing an early 1700s printed edition, which should have your variants.

Since you are well-informed on some of these issues, you might be able to assist on the 1800s textual history. 🙂. One key question is whether there was a Tischendorf contribution to the NT text, either directly or through the Vatican Jesuits.

Remember, in general the textual work was done by Benedict, not Simonides. At least in the OT.


Alexandrinus quotes from Simonides

Plus there is more in the larger section.

Codex Alexandrinus as Sinaiticus Source

And there is a Zosimas section.

Note the superb 2013 quote from Chris Pinto.


Wonder where you found those two variants? Most of that type of argumentation has been Scrivener and Snapp's 20 multiplication of nothings.

It may well be that we can find some superb documentation of the general Alexandrinus--> Sinaiticus dependency in the Pauline Epistles or Revelation. You look for variants, homoeoteleuton, and special features. Including Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons.


Luke Carpenter
Steven Avery Thanks for the resources. I admit I have a lot of research to do in this area. I came across those variants from my own perusing through Hoskier and collations of Uncial and Papyri fragments in Revelation (since there are so few). I get the general impression that Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus have different text types in Revelation from things said by Hoskier, Schmid, and others. There is a place where they coincide in 21:3 by saying "throne" rather than "heaven". א and A also agree with 94, the Latin tradition, and Irenaeus in that place. I'll do more digging.


Revelation 21:3
θρόνου] ‭א A 94 pc itar vg Irenaeus-lat Tyconius Ambrose Augustine Haymo WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
οὐρανοῦ] (see Revelation 21:2) P 046 051supp Byz it-gig syr-ph syr-h cop-sa cop-bo Primasius ς ND Dio

Revelation 21:3 (AV)
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying,
Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,
and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people,
and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Thanks, Luke. All studies, and resources and quotes appreciated.

Revelation in Sinaiticus likely used the Andreas commentary.

the Sinaiticus Revelation as Commentary?

The theory that it was somehow a precursor to Andreas and Oecumenius is the type of circular absurdity that is common in textual circles.

"anticipating the later concerns of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea."


Luke Carpenter
Steven Avery Interesting. I think that theory even now is challenged by modern scholars but I'm in the midst of some readings on that that I'll probably never finish 🙂. I will also point out that Rev. 4:11 looks a whole lot like an accidental conflation of the TR reading (followed by only 2814, 2186, and 2428 to my knowledge) of κυρίε and A with ο κύριος και ο Θεός ημων into κε ο κς και ο θς ημων...


Steven Avery
If you have any pushback spots against that relatively recent theory (Juan Gonzalez) please share away. Thanks!


Revelation 4:11 (AV)
Thou art worthy, O Lord,
to receive glory and honour and power:
for thou hast created all things,
and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


John Hurt

νου εντεϲ αξιοϲ ει
κε ο κϲ και θϲ ημω
λαβειν την δοξα
και τιμην και την
δυναμιν οτι ϲυ ε
κτιϲαϲ τα παντα
και δια το θελη
μα ϲου ηϲαν και

and A with
ο κύριος και ο Θεός ημων
κε ο κς και ο θς ημων...
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Additional variants from Scrivener, Snapp and others.


Note: James White made absurd papyri claims, in the debate with Chris Pinto.


A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Textament
Chapter 4 - Was the Codex Siniaiticus Written by Constantine Simonides

One example will illustrate our meaning as well as a thousand, which the student may readily find for himself in the following collation. In Matthew 14:30 Codex Sinaiticus omits ισχυρον after ανεμον. In 1839 no other document, manuscript, version,45 or Father was known to countenance such a variation; it has no such inherent probability as to have suggested itself to Benedict, or to any one else. When Rulotta’s revised collation of the Codex Vaticanus was brought to light again in 1855, it first became known that that venerable authority contains the word only in a later hand; in 1857 Tregelles published his collation of the important cursive Codex 33, made seven years before; this copy also omits ισχυρον. Thus, were we now engaged in forming a text that should seem ancient, here is just such a textual variant as we should adopt for our purpose; it could not have been so employed twenty-four years ago, since the omission in any one codex was completely unknown, and would not have been conjectured.

45 – Mill, indeed, in the Appendix to his N. T. (1707), observes “omittit ισχυρον Copt.;” but this, like so many of his best readings, was neglected by the later editors, Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz; no one will think that Benedict borrowed the hint from Mill's note.
Here is the LaParola support for the omission.

‭א B* 073 33 vg-ms cop-sa cop-bo cop-fay WH NR Riv NM

This omission would be easy if accidental or on purpose.

Scrivener - Matthew 14:30


Last edited:

Steven Avery

Snapp #11 and 12
Matthew 14:30 from Scrivener

James deliberately overlooks the fact that Simonides says there were other sources. Likely Simonides did not know all the exact sources used, since much was prepared by Benedict before his scribal involvement.

Lets look a few variants highlighted by James.

The synagogues of Judea blunder.
The variant Ἰουδαίας (of Judah) instead of Γαλιλαίας (of Galilee) in 1:26.
"some of these may possibly be arbitrary alterations"



The variant Θεου (“God”) instead of Κυρίου (“Lord”) in 2:9.

LaParola says Θεου is a corrector.

κυρίου] Byz ς WH
θεοῦ] ‭א2 Ξ Ψ 892 pc itc ite itz vg syrh(mg) Eusebius
omit] D pc it


The insertion of λέγοντες (“saying”) in 2:15.

και εγενετο ωϲ α
πηλθον απ αυτω
ειϲ τον ουρανον
οι αγγελοι ποιμαι
νεϲ ελαλουν προϲ
αλληλουϲ λεγον
τεϲ διελθωμεν
δη εωϲ βηθλεεμ
και ϊδωμεν το ρη
μα τουτο το γεγονοϲ
ο ο κϲ εγνωριϲεν

So where is this inserted word in Sinaiticus?


Last edited:

Steven Avery

Luke Carpenter

I really tried to. I poured over the mss and examined Hoskier's notes for years. For every attempted explanation of a strange reading, I can think of 5 more that confuddle the defense of the TR even more. For example: Rev. 22:19 contains another obscure TR variant, as does 22:21, 22:11, 21:2, and 20:14. All of these are things Erasmus took from Latin. Have fun figuring it out

Rev. 22:19 contains another obscure TR variant, as does
21:2, and

Rev 21:2 (AV)
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I saw the holy city - the new Jerusalem - descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband.


John Gill
the name is left out in the Alexandrian copy, and in the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions:

21:2 (Münster)
τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν εἶδον] Byz WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης εἶδον τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν] ς ND Dio

ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ] ‭א A Byz WH NR CEI ND Riv Dio TILC Nv NM
ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ] al ς
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Luke Carpenter -
two problems with your problem. First, Revelation is of unknown language origin, and , for example, both the Greek and the Latin can be separate translations from a Semitic language. Thus there is no imperative that the Latin is superior to the Greek.

Beyond that, I looked at your 21:2 example above. Yes there are two ultra-minority variants in the TR text used in


However the resulting translations in both the AV and NetBible are virtually identical, the AV text has the name John.

Rev 21:2 (AV)
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And I saw the holy city - the new Jerusalem - descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband.

So I have no reason to accept the Greek without John over any Latin with his name.

So if this is to have any effect, it should be to move you more to an AV position than that of a TR.

ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης εἶδον

It is a little strange, apparently there is lots of support for the "I" including Irenaeus and the Peshitta

The "John" is mentioned in the Clementine Vulgate, which should mean substantial Latin support, including mss. available to Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. The modern editions can play games.

However Hoskier has a reference to the Compluensian, not sure which side.

Roger Pearse quoting ACCS
".... commentaries in the west from the “commentary of Victorinus of Petovium through those of Tyconius, Primasius, Apringius, Caesarius of Arles, the Venerable Bede,” and later medieval writers. Victorinus died ca. 304. In the east “no Greek commentary of the Revelation appears before the sixth century (Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea), and that after the commentary of Arerhas (c. 900), who largely works over the commentary of Andrew of Caesarea, no additional commentary of significance arises…”.

Steven Avery