Chapter 8

Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian

Commentary on the Apocalypse?
JUAN HERNÁNDEZ JR

The Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus is a striking example of a fourth-century text that

differs substantially from modern critical editions. It exhibits dozens of differences at key
locations, reflecting the concerns, interests, and idiosyncrasies of its earliest copyists and
readers. Taken as a whole, Codex Sinaiticus’s text of the Apocalypse reads like an early
Christian commentary on the book, disclosing its fourth-century milieu and anticipating
the later concerns of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea. This is no commentary in
the contemporary sense, however. Codex Sinaiticus’s readings range from the spectacular
to the mundane and include the theological, the liturgical, the commonplace, and even
the infelicitous. It is a text ever in tension with itself, effective both in its capacity to
obscure as well as in its regulation of meaning. Clarity and confusion reign together and
compete for our attention. Nonetheless, we can discern a concerted effort to elucidate
the Apocalypse’s message by scores of changes throughout. Some of these are inherited,
others created. All affect the reading of the text.1

t h e i n f e l ic i t ous 2
We turn first to those sobering and ‘infelicitous’ readings. These include words that deviate
from standard orthography, words that are pure nonsense (or nonsense in context), and
finally words that are added or omitted carelessly and challenge our best efforts at making
sense of the text. Orthographic variation, though typical in every manuscript, appears
to be represented by a very small number of changes to the text. Nasal sound variation,
consonantal variation, and the adding or dropping of consonants and vowels occur in
the single digits – a remarkably small number considering how many opportunities the
scribes had to fail.3
This is also true of the vowel/diphthong variation. Of the variety of combinations,
most appear in the single digits. Only two exceptions surface: the first is the ε to αι
and αι to ε change, occurring sixteen and thirteen times respectively; the second is the
switch from ι to ει, occurring a staggering 131 times. The latter is a significant departure
from every other orthographic variation and one that challenges our ability to speak of
standardized spelling. In fact, the haphazard exchange from ι to ει is what appears to
have been standard. Not even the inverse sequence, ει to ι, approaches it in frequency,
surfacing only ten times in the Apocalypse.
Now while it might seem that this is precisely the kind of pedantry that is best avoided,
this particular data set does shed light on at least one variant. In Revelation 4:3, we
encounter a scene in which a ‘rainbow’, ἶρις, surrounds God’s throne. Codex Sinaiticus,
however, followed by a few other witnesses, reads ‘priests’, ἱερεῖς, instead of ‘rainbow’.4

107
 Juan Hernández Jr

The variant is often explained as a by-product of a scribal mishearing at a time when the
pronunciation of ι and ει was not differentiated.5 True as that may be, it is worth noting
that while the second syllable of ἱερεῖς attests to the widespread vowel exchange, the first
syllable does not. In fact, the ἶ to ἱε exchange never occurs in the text of the Apocalypse
in this manuscript. Furthermore, it is conspicuous that ἶρις, which occurs only twice in
the Apocalypse, is replaced with another word in each instance. The fact that the term
in verse 4:3 makes contextual sense only furthers suspicions of a deliberate change. The
patterns of orthographic and textual variation make it unlikely that the insertion of
‘priests’ was a product of mishearing.
Turning to nonsense readings, we find that these are also relatively few in number. They
include misspellings that go beyond orthographic variation, grammatically incongruent
readings, and readings that make no sense in context. The variants in each of these
categories occur in the single digits. As with orthographic variation, the number of non-
sense readings is small against the many opportunities for error. The greatest challenge
to producing a readable text was not wayward spelling. Not even senseless repetitions
pose a serious challenge. Only three dittographies surface in Codex Sinaiticus’s text of
the Apocalypse. The greatest challenge comes from careless omissions, omissions large
enough to reduce every other scribal infelicity to the status of peccadilloes.
Most omissions in Codex Sinaiticus consist of one to three words and – with a few
exceptions – have little or no impact on the reading of the text. Articles, conjunctions and
short phrases routinely drop out. Once we move to omissions of four or five words at a
time then our capacity to make sense of the text begins to be hampered. With omissions
of six or more words, we find ourselves in hostile territory, facing a text disinterested in
our comprehension.
Large omissions appear early in the text. By the time we are halfway through the book,
we will have encountered omissions of six, seven or eleven words alongside smaller ones.
In the second half of the book we find omissions of nine, twelve, seventeen and twenty-
three words – again, alongside smaller omissions. Most of these appear to be omissions
‘from the same to the same’. The result is a text with sporadic, haphazard, and piecemeal
excisions that defy attempts at a continuous reading. We are left to wonder whether the
text was even finished before the arrival of later correctors.6
One thing is clear, however: the text of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus is shorter
than the ‘earliest attainable text’. A comparison of every textual variation between Nestle-
Aland and Codex Sinaiticus reveals that Sinaiticus contains 182 extra words, but also
omits 389, resulting in a net loss of 207 words.7 Even if we cannot trace every omission
to the fourth century scribes, it is clear that the combined effect of textual transmission
and scribal activity exhibited in the manuscript has resulted in a shorter text.

t h e c om mon -pl ac e
We turn now to readings that are ‘common-place’. These are sensible readings that
surface throughout the manuscript and are the product of harmonization, transposition,
the substitution of terms, and/or grammatical changes. Most of these are mundane and
easily explicable. A few, particularly among the substitutions, are quite striking and the
possible product of early redaction. Among the ‘common-place’ readings are also the
nomina sacra that pervade the manuscript.8
As might be expected, the so-called ‘divine names’ feature prominently among the
nomina sacra. These include: θεός, κύριος, χριστός, and Ἰησοῦς. With the exception of

108
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?

χριστός, which is written in full once, all of these are rendered as nomina sacra without
fail. This is true whether they appear alone or in combination, such as with Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ,
κύριος ὁ θεός, or even the striking ὁ θεὸς ὁ κύριος (Revelation 18:8; 19:6). Nomina sacra
even surface where Nestle-Aland’s text has no candidates for the abbreviation. All the
nomina sacra appear in contracted form in the Apocalypse, and only once does Ἰησοῦς
surface in a conflated form.
Other words that appear as nomina sacra without fail include πνεῦμα, Ἰηρουσαλήμ,
Ἰσραήλ, and Δαυίδ. Their occurrence as such, however, appears to indicate convention
rather than pious motive. Πνεῦμα, for example, is turned into a nomen sacrum whether
it is speaking of the Holy Spirit, the human spirit, or unclean spirits.9 Even the adverb
πνευματικῶς, which in Revelation 11:8 means ‘allegorically,’ is transformed into a nomen
sacrum.10
The remaining terms, οὐρανός, ἄνθρωπος, πατήρ, ὠμέγα, and ὑιός are rendered as
nomina sacra the majority of times but in varying degrees. As a consequence, it is even
more difficult to assert their theological significance. For example, although πατήρ always
refers to God the Father in the Apocalypse, it is only changed into a nomen sacrum three
out of five times. The title, ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου appears as a nomen sacrum in only one out
of two times. And the only other instance of ὑιός as a nomen sacrum applies to someone
other than Jesus (Revelation 21:7).11
The most that can be said about the nomina sacra is that their consistent use for the
four ‘divine names’ points to a well established practice, especially since these occur even
in variants to the earliest attainable text. Less can be said about the remaining terms,
except to note that the transformation of ὠμέγα into a nomen sacrum (from the title, the
‘Alpha and Omega’) in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 is intriguing.12 Finally, there are no
Christograms or staurograms in the text of the Apocalypse.

su bs t i t u t ions
As noted above, some of the most striking changes in Codex Sinaiticus occur among
our substituted terms. While many are minor adjustments or even sensible mishaps, a
handful appear to betray broader concerns. The first case appears only a few words into
the text, where δούλοις is replaced with ἁγίοις in Revelation 1:1.13 Here the Apocalypse
is given to God’s ‘saints’ rather than to his ‘servants’. The redaction is replicated at the
very end of the book, where the benediction, ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus be with all,’
is narrowed to ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints’ (Revelation 22:21).14 The
insertion of ἅγιος at these strategic locations strikes a nice balance and leaves no doubt
about the book’s intended readership.
Elsewhere substituted terms appear to be the by-product of harmonizing. The change
in Revelation 6:14, where νῆσος ‘island’ is replaced with βουνός ‘valley’,15 looks like a
harmonization to Luke 3:5 (or possibly Isaiah 40). In these two passages, ‘every moun-
tain and every valley’ will be brought low on the Day of the Lord. In the Apocalypse,
however, it is every ‘mountain and island’ that will be removed. By replacing νῆσος with
βουνός, the text of the Apocalypse is brought into greater conformity with the prophetic
record.
The rationale for other substituted terms is more difficult to discern. For example, it
is unclear why the ‘rainbow’ that surrounds God’s throne in Revelation 4:3 should be
changed to ‘priests’. A deliberate alteration is likely given the patterns of orthographic
variation in the book. Its significance, however, remains a mystery. Perhaps Parker is

109
 Juan Hernández Jr

correct to speculate that the change reflects the custom of having priests stand around the
imperial throne at the time of Constantine.16 Irrespective of this, it is worth noting that
the only other occurrence of ‘rainbow’ in the Apocalypse is also replaced with another
word. This time ἶρις is not changed to ἱερεῖς, ‘priests,’ but to θρίξ, ‘hair’. The exchange
occurs in Revelation 10:1, where the Strong Angel straddles the earth and the sea.17 It
is likely that the replacement of ‘rainbow’ with ‘hair’ is a harmonization to Revelation
1:13, where the glorified Son of Man is also described as having ‘hair’, αἱ τρίχες. The fact
that various characteristics of the Strong Angel already echo those of the Son of Man
increases the likelihood that the change is meant to draw the two even closer. To this we
might add that there was already an exegetical tradition in place that equated the two
figures. Victorinus of Pettau (in the third century) and Tyconius (in the fourth) assert that
the Strong Angel was in fact the Son of Man.18
Other substitutions appear to be rather straightforward in their function, such
as the change in Revelation 20:13, where the fate of the dead before God’s throne is
about to be determined. Rather than having them ‘judged according to their works’,
ἐκρίθησαν, Sinaiticus reads that they were ‘condemned in accordance with their works’,
κατεκρίθησαν.19 The change makes perfect sense in light of the fact that the same group
is thrown into the Lake of Fire in the next verse (20:14).
Finally, some substituted terms appear to solve an exegetical difficulty. This appears
to be the case with the reading χιλός in Revelation 21:17, which replaces τεῖχος.20 The
scene here depicts an angel measuring the wall, the τεῖχος, of the city. Codex Sinaiticus,
however, has him measuring its χιλός, which, as spelled, means ‘fodder’ and produces
nonsense in context. However, if χιλός is actually the itacistic spelling for χεῖλος, which
means ‘edge’, then the use of the term begins to make sense and eradicates a problem with
the wall’s dimensions. The Apocalypse’s description of a wall of 144 cubits – understood
in a flat, literal manner – is far too small to enclose its gigantic, cubical city. The city after
all is reported to be a cube of 12,000 stadia or a little over 2,400 kilometres,21 while its
wall is 144 cubits, that is, 68 ½ metres (75 yards).22 However, with the angel measuring
the city’s edge rather than its wall, the problem evaporates.23
Scores of other substitutions are to be found throughout the text of Codex Sinaiticus.
Most are unremarkable. Some, like the aforementioned, can be quite interesting. Others
make an unmistakable theological contribution to the text. Before turning to these we
will survey the Apocalypse’s liturgical expansions.

t h e l i t u rgic a l
The Apocalypse contains many scenes of worship, most of them celestial. Doxologies
abound in the work and the whole world celebrates the creative and redemptive acts
of God on cue. Copyists and readers appear to have immersed themselves in this act of
worship by augmenting the work’s liturgical material. The changes that occur are part
of a continuum that has already been established by the book itself. What is intriguing,
however, is the fact that the added and expanded doxologies appear to point to the work’s
reverential usage. Perhaps here we have clear textual evidence that the Apocalypse was
in fact considered fit for use within worship settings, at least by its earliest copyists and
readers.
Most of the adjustments are minor and involve the addition of an ‘amen’ to an already
existing doxology, such as we find in Revelation 4:9, 10; 11:15, and 15:7.24 We also
find an ‘amen’ added to the final benediction of Revelation 22:21.25 In verse 7:10, the

110
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?

phrase ‘forever and ever, amen’ is added to a doxology that offers praise to both God
and the Lamb and may be of Christological import.26 Finally, we have the multiplication
of ‘Holies’ in Revelation 4:8. Rather than reading, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God
Almighty’, Sinaiticus ascribes holiness to God eight times – just one shy of a perfect nine
– which would be capable of crediting three ‘holies’ to each member of the Godhead.
While we stop short of attributing such a motive to our scribe, it is nonetheless interest-
ing that the later Trisagion Hymn does precisely that.27 Perhaps the hymn’s origin can be
traced to this kind of incremental expansion.
All of these additions continue a trend already present in the Apocalypse. The expanded
doxological material appears to underscore the book’s reverential usage and counters the
notion of a work unfit for use in worship settings.28 Presumably, it was this kind of pious
usage that factored into the book’s ultimate canonical acceptance.

t h e t h e ol ogic a l
Lastly, we turn to those readings that make a significant theological contribution to the
text. These readings are remarkable insofar as they continue the move toward greater
precision and clarity, but they do so in an explicit Christological direction. A glimpse
of this tendency was already observed in the recasting of the Strong Angel as the Son
of Man in Revelation 10:1. The readings to be discussed here, however, are even bolder
in their assertions about Christ and may reflect the contentious theological climate of
the fourth century. The presence of such striking variants alongside some of the more
egregious scribal blunders mandates that we differentiate between scribal performance
and goals – presumably to produce an accurate transcription – and what was already
in an exemplar prior to copying. It is unlikely that a scribe would have inserted these
changes extemporaneously while trying to copy with care. Yet, the presence of variants
that fit so well into their fourth century milieu suggests that their introduction to the
exemplar may have taken place fairly recently, perhaps just prior to transcription.
The first Christological reading to surface is in Revelation 3:14. The title of the risen
Christ, ‘the beginning of the creation of God’, κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, is altered to the ‘begin-
ning of the church of God’, ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ.29 The change eliminates the possibility
of placing Jesus within the created order and is conspicuous against the backdrop of the
fourth century, defined as it was by its pitched theological battles over the precise nature
of the Son. In fact, it is remarkable how close the Apocalypse’s original title comes to
Arius’s own musings about the Son. In the Thalia fragments, one of the few primary
sources believed to preserve Arius’s authentic words, we encounter the following asser-
tion: ‘The one without beginning established the Son as the beginning of all creatures’.30
The ‘Arian’ statement is nearly indistinguishable from the Apocalypse’s original title.
The eradication of such language in Codex Sinaiticus appears to indicate that the word-
ing was a problem. The title of Revelation 3:14 was thus harmonized to the title of
Colossians 1:18, where Jesus is ‘the head of the church’ (κεφαλὴ…τῆς ἐκκλησίας).31
Remarkably, two centuries later Oecumenius would use Revelation 3:14 to weigh in
on the Arian controversy of his day. Oecumenius’s text of Revelation 3:14 is identical
to the ‘earliest attainable text’, and he displays no knowledge of the singular reading
in Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, Oecumenius also reads Revelation 3:14 in light of Colossians
1:18 as he attempts to refute the idea that the Son was created. The singular reading of
Codex Sinaiticus may therefore represent the earliest use of the Apocalypse (on record)
to thwart an ‘Arian’ threat by reading it in light of Colossians.32

111
 Juan Hernández Jr

The second Christological variant is in Revelation 3:16, where we encounter one of

the boldest textual changes to the portrait of Jesus in the Apocalypse. Here Jesus makes
his well-known threat to vomit the Laodiceans out of his mouth. The text of Codex
Sinaiticus, however, removes any indication that Jesus is capable of such a grotesque
bodily function. Instead of vomiting the Laodiceans out of his mouth, μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι
ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου, the text of Sinaiticus reads that Jesus was ‘to stop their mouth(s)’,
παῦσαι τοῦ στόματός σου.33 Once again, the theological controversies of the fourth century
may prove helpful here with their debates about how to understand passages that speak
about the humanity of Jesus. Passages that refer to Jesus eating, sleeping, being angry, or
struggling at Gethsemane posed a serious theological problem and were the subject of
rigorous debate. Presumably a passage where Jesus threatens to vomit would have been
just as problematic, supplying a possible rationale for the change here. Of course, this
would also mean that the metaphorical thrust of the verse was lost on the Apocalypse’s
earliest readers and copyists. This would not have been the first time that has happened,
however.
The redaction of the doxology in Revelation 5:13 appears to also be of Christological
import. The majority of the Apocalypse’s manuscripts here read: ‘To the One who sits
on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing, honour, glory and power’, καὶ τὸ κράτος.
Codex Sinaiticus, however, replaces καὶ τὸ κράτος with παντοκράτορος, so that the doxol-
ogy now asserts that both God and the Lamb receive ‘the blessing, honour, and glory
of the Almighty’.34 The reading reduces four qualities into three and modifies them with
the prepositional phrase, ‘of the Almighty’. In other words, the text of Codex Sinaiticus
makes explicit that the qualities attributed to both God and the Lamb proceed from the
Almighty, presumably, without distinction.
It is difficult to exaggerate the significance of such a reading in the fourth century.
Turning once more to Arius’s own words in the Thalia fragments, we find that he differ-
entiates between the degrees of glory ascribed to each member of the Godhead. Without
equivocation Arius states: ‘there exists a trinity in unequal glories, for their essences are
not mixed with each other. In their glories, one is more glorious than another in infinite
degree’.35 In contrast, the language of Sinaiticus appears to preclude such distinctions
within the Godhead. The fact that formulations like Arius’s were circulating in the fourth
century may have led to an attempt to shield the text of the Apocalypse from similar
‘misapprehension’.

a ddi t ion a l va r i a n t s
While these are certainly among the most spectacular Christological contributions, they
are by no means the only ones. Several other substitutions surface and call for further
study. These include the change in Revelation 2:22 where Jezebel is summoned by Jesus
to a bed of judgment, καλῶ, rather than being thrown on it, βάλλω.36 Similarly, the change
in 3:20 appears to emphasize Jesus’s sovereignty. It is the Lord who opens the door of
salvation, ἀνοίξω, not the individual being summoned, ἀνοίξῃ.37 We also note that three
out of the four verses that contain the verb σκηνόω, ‘to tabernacle’ or ‘to dwell’, are
altered in the Apocalypse, perhaps in deference to the incarnational language of John
1:14.38
Apart from these Christological alterations, we discover that every occurrence of the
phrase ‘under the earth’, ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς, is dropped in Codex Sinaiticus (Revelation
5:3, 13).39 While this could easily be the result of a leap ‘from the same to the same’, it

112
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?

is conspicuous that both omissions occur in the throne room scene of Revelation 5 – a
setting of celestial worship. The removal of ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς effectively excludes those
‘under the earth’ from participating.40
Finally, we encounter the sporadic alteration of angelic roles in the Apocalypse. The
reading of Codex Sinaiticus in Revelation 9:15, for example, denies angelic participation
in the slaughter of a third of humanity.41 What is striking about this particular variant is
how effectively it sidesteps Gaius’s third-century objections to the Apocalypse on account
of this very verse.42 Andrew of Caesarea’s seventh-century commentary also registers
concerns over this.

c onc lusion
Despite all of this, the text of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus is a far cry from
a full-blown commentary. First and foremost, the Codex contains a transcribed text.
As such, its primary role is to transmit the Apocalypse faithfully. Nonetheless, we can
discern a tendency to assist in its interpretation with the introduction of a variety of
changes. These could have accumulated over the years from marginal notes and/or
scribal redactions in the exemplar. With their introduction into the Codex, however, the
transcription begins to read like a commentary. Some of these redactions could have a
greater claim to ancestry, like the transformation of the Strong Angel in Revelation 10:1
or the prohibition against angelic violence in Revelation 9:15, especially since concerns
over these verses can be tracked to the third century. The more explicit Christological and
even anti-Arian redactions would appear to be contemporaneous with the transcription
of the book in the fourth century. That is not to indicate that our scribes were apologists,
who ‘thought up’ such changes in scribendo.43 Rather, it is likely that these redactions
were already present in their exemplar(s), even if they were introduced fairly recently.
Who introduced them and the particular processes behind their insertion, however,
remains unknown and underscores the need for further study of Codex Sinaiticus and its
intriguing readings.

113
 Juan Hernández Jr

a p p e n di x : t h e i n f e l ic i t ous
Orthography
Nasal Sound Variation Consonantal Variation
νκ > κγ (1x) ζ > σ (1x)
νχ > γχ (1x) θ > τ (1x)
νκ > γκ (1x) ξ > σ (1x)
νγ > γγ (1x) ζ > δ (1x)
δ > ζ (1x)

Vowel/Diphthong Variation
ι > ει (131x)44 α > η (3x)
ει > ι (10x) α > αι (1x)
α > ο (1x)
ε > αι (16x) α > εα (1x)
αι > ε (13x)
ευ > ω (1x)
η > ει (4x) ει > ια (1x)
ει > η (4x) ει > α (1x)
ε > η (1x)
ε > α (6x)
α > ε (2x) η > εα (1x)

ο > ω (1x) ι > εω (1x)

ω > ο (1x) ι > ια (1x)

o > ου (1x) υ > οι (9x)

ου > ω (1x)

Dropped Consonants Added Vowels

Ιωανει > Ιωαννη εγρηγορων > γρηγορων
Ιωανης (2x) > Ιωαννης πληιγαις > πληγαις
ερεθη > ερρεθη
νεφθαλι > νεφθαλιμ
απεθανε > απεθανεν
βασιλευ > βασιλευς

Uncontracted Forms
χρυσεους > χρυσοῦς
χρυσεας > χρυσᾶς
χρυσαια > χρυσᾶ
χαλκεα > χαλκᾶ

114
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?
Nonsense Readings
Formal
παρ οφθαλμος > πας οφθαλμος (1:7)
οιαν > ποιαν (3:3)45
ζεστρος > ζεστος (3:16)
εντες > λεγοντες (4:10)
δρακυον > δακρυον (7:17)
ριπαρα > λιπαρα (18:14)
μενη > περιβεβλημενη (18:16)
αγγε > αγγελον (20:1)
ειτινες > οιτινες (20:4)
δρακυ > δακρυον (21:4)
ενθεν > εντευθεν (22:2)

Grammatical
5:7 της καθημενου > του καθημενου
7:2 τοις τεσσαρες > τοις τεσσαρσιν
13:6 τους σκηνουντες > τους σκηνουντας
13:7 εδοθη αυτω εξουσιαν > εδοθη αυτω εξουσια
20:12 ταις βιβλοις > τοις βιβλοις

Contextual (Excluding Haplography and Dittography)

6:16 κρυψατε ημας επι της οργης > κρυψατε ημας απο της οργης
12:13 εδωκεν την γυναικα > εδιωξεν την γυναικα
14:3 μιαν χιλιαδες > τεσσαρες χιλιαδες
21:4 προβατα > πρωτα

Dittography (All)
2:10 βαλλειν βαλιν > βαλλειν
6:9 δια την μαρτυριαν δια την μαρτυριαν > δια την μαρτυριαν
14:3 των των > των

Haplography (Leaps ‘from the same’ of five or more words)

4:3–4 του θρονου [ομοιος ορασει σμαραγδινω και κυκλοθεν του θρονου]
7:5 χιλιαδες [εκ φυλης Γαδ δωδεκα χιλιαδες] εκ φυλης
7:7 χιλιαδες [εκ φυλης Συμεων δωδεκα χιλιαδες] εκ φυλης
9:2 της βυσσου [και ηνοιξεν το φρεαρ της βυσσου] και
10:6 εν αυτη [και την θαλασσαν και τα εν αυτη]
14:8–9 [ηκολουθησεν λεγων επεσεν επεσεν βαβυλων η μεγαλη η εκ του
οινου του θυμου της πορνειας αυτης πεποτικεν παντα εθνη και
αλλος αγγελος τριτος] ηκολουθησεν
16:2 γην [και απηλθεν ο πρωτος και εξεχεεν την φιαλην αυτου εις την γην] και
16:11 αυτων [και εκ των ελκων αυτων] και
16:13 [του δρακοντος και εκ του στοματος του θηριου και εκ του στοματος] του
18:2 ακαθαρτου [και φυλακη παντος θηριου ακαθαρτου] και
18:22 ετι [και φωνη μυλου ου μη ευρεθη εν σοι ετι] και
20:2–3 αυτον [χιλια ετη και εβαλεν αυτον]
20:5 ετη [οι λοιποι των νεκρων ουκ εζησαν αχρι τελεσθη τα χιλια ετη]
21:13 τρεις [και απο δυσμων πυλωνες τρεις] και

115
 Juan Hernández Jr
The Shorter Text of Revelation in Codex Sinaiticus
Singular Readings46
Added Words 66
Omitted Words 116
Word Loss 50

Singular Readings with Versional Support47

Added Words 17
Omitted Words 30
Word Loss 13

Every Variant Reading (Singular and Non-Singular) compared with Nestle-Aland27

Additions 182
Omissions 389
Word Loss 207

The Common-place
Nomina Divina Contracted Form Conflated Form Occurrences
Nomina Sacra
Ἰησοῦς ις, ιυ, (ιιυ)48 ιηυ Consistently.
θεός θς, θυ, θω, θν Consistently.
κύριος κς, κυ κω, κε Consistently.
(κυριος κυριων = κς κων)
Χριστός χυ 6 out of 7x.

Other
πνεῦμα πνα, πνατος, πνι, Consistently.
πνατων, πνατα
(πνευματικως = πνικως)
Ἰερουσαλήμ ιλημ Consistently.
Ἰσραήλ ισλ Consistently.
Δαυίδ δαδ Consistently.
οὐρανός ουνος, ουνου, ουνω, 38 out of 49x.
ουνον
ἄνθρωπος ανου, ανον, ανοι, 16 out of 23x.
ανων, ανους
πατήρ πρς, πρι 3 out of 5x.
ὠμέγα ω 2 out of 3x.
ὑιός υς, υν 1 out of 5x.
υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου υς ανου 1 out of 2x.
υἱὸς θεοῦ [υιος] θυ ½ out of 1x.

116
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?
Substitutions (A Sample)
Clarification of the Apocalypse’s Readership
Rev 1:1 ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ‫א‬c, rell.
‘which God gave him to show to his servants’

ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ ‫*א‬.

‘which God gave him to show to his saints’

Rev 22:21 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων rell.

‘The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.’

Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγίων (ἀμήν ‫א‬, 051s, M, vgcl, sy, co) ‫א‬, gig.
‘The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints. Amen.’

Harmonization to Prophecy49
Rev 6:14 καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος ἐκ τῶν τόπων αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν rell.
‘And every mountain and island was removed from its place.’

καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ βουνὸς ἐκ τῶν τόπων αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν ‫א‬.
‘And every mountain and valley was removed from its place.’

cf. Luke 3:5 καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ βουνὸς ταπεινωθήσεται

‘And every mountain and valley shall be brought low.’

Priests around God’s Throne

Rev 4:3 καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου rell.
‘And a rainbow surrounded the throne.’

καὶ ἱερεῖς κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ‫*א‬, A, 2329, pc.

‘And priests surrounded the throne.’

The Strong Angel is the Son of Man

Rev 10:1 καὶ ἡ ἶρις ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ‫א‬c*, rell.
‘And there was a rainbow on his head.’

καὶ ἡ θρὶξ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ‫*א‬.

‘And there was hair on his head.’

cf. Rev 1:14 ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ τρίχες

‘And his head and his hairs…’

cf. ‘And by this ‘mighty angel’...he signifies our Lord.’50

Victorinus:

cf. Tyconius: ‘In this angel the person of our Savior is indicated.’51

117
 Juan Hernández Jr

Measuring the City’s Edge52

Rev 21:17 καὶ ἐμέτρησεν τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς rell.
‘And he measured its wall’

καὶ ἐμέτρησεν τὸ χιλός (sic. χεῖλος) αὐτῆς ‫א‬.

‘And he measured its edge’

The Liturgical
Addition of ‘Amen’
Rev 4:9 τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων rell.
‘to the one who lives forever and ever.’

τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν ‫א‬.

‘to the one who lives forever and ever. Amen.’

Rev 4:10 τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων rell.

‘to the one who lives forever and ever.’

τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν ‫א‬, 2329, pc, t, syph.
‘to the one who lives forever and ever. Amen.’

Rev 11:15 καὶ βασιλεύσει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων rell.
‘And he will reign forever and ever.’

καὶ βασιλεύσει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν ‫א‬, 2344, pc, vgcl, bo.
‘And he will reign forever and ever. Amen.’

Rev 15:7 τοῦ ζῶντος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων rell.
‘Who lives forever and ever.’

τοῦ ζῶντος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν ‫א‬, pc, syph, bo.
‘Who lives forever and ever. Amen’

Rev 22:21 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων rell.

‘The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.’

Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων (ἀμήν ‫א‬, 051s, M, vgcl, sy, co) ‫א‬, gig.
‘The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints. Amen.’

Addition of ‘forever and ever, amen’

Rev 7:10 τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ ‫א‬c, rell.
‘to the one who sits on the throne and to the lamb’

τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ ‫*א‬. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν
‘to the one who sits on the throne and to the lamb forever and ever, amen.’

118
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?

Expansion of ‘Holies’
Rev 4:8 ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ
‘Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty…’

ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος κύριος θεὸς παντοκράτωρ ‫*א‬, pc.
‘Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty…’

The Theological
Jesus was not created.
Rev 3:14 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ‫א‬c, rell.
‘The beginning of the creation of God.’

ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ ‫*א‬.

‘The beginning of the church of God.’

Arius: Ἀρχὴν τὸν Υἱὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γενητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος.

‘The one without beginning (i.e. God) established the Son as the beginning of all
creatures.’53

Oecumenius: ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ φησιν ἐπιφοιτήσειειν ἂν ἴσως τὸ χριστομάχον τῶν Ἀρειανῶν
ἐργαστήριον τῷ εἰρημένῷ, ὡς τοῦ Υἱοῦ κτίσματος διὰ τούτων γραφομένου, ἀλλὰ μὴ
τοῖς ἀνοσίοις αὐτῶν λόγοις προσέχωμεν σκοπητέον δὲ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον καὶ ἐν ἑτέρᾳ κεῖται
γραφῇ, ἵν’ ἔχοι τις ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων τὰ ὅμοια κανονίζειν. φησὶν ὁ σοφὸς ἀπόστολος περὶ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ Κολασσαεῦσιν ἐπιστέλλων ὅς ἐστιν ἀπαρχή, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, οὐ
μὴν >>πρωτόκτιστος<<, καὶ ὁ προφήτης λέγει ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε,
οὐ μὴν >>ἔκτισά σε<<. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Σολομὼν πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾷ με τὸ γὰρ
Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ νοερῶς ἐμψυχωμένου σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου ὁ
ἐν ἁγίοις ἐξείληφε Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ Περὶ Υἱοῦ λόγῳ, τὸ δὲ γεννᾷ ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ.
πάντων οὖν γέννησιν καὶ οὐ κτίσιν ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Λόγου καὶ Υἱοῦ δογματισάντων,
τί βούλεται τὸ ἐν τῷ παρόντι λέγεσθαι ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ; οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ
>>ἄρχων<< τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ὁ τὴν κατὰ πάντων ἀρχὴν ἔχων ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πάντα
διὰ Υἱοῦ πεποίηκεν ὁ Πατήρ, εἰκότως ὁ ποιητὴς τῶν ἁπάντων καὶ δημιουργός, ὁ ἐκ μὴ
ὄντων εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα παραγαγών, ἄρχει τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένων.54

‘He says, the beginning of God’s creation: perhaps the Arians’ anti-Christ workshop
would light upon this saying, as though the Son were described by these words as
a creature. But let us take notice of their unholy words. We must examine whether
any such description occurs in another text, so that one might be able to form a
judgment by comparing similar terms. The wise apostle, writing to the Colossians,
talks of the Son ‘who is the first-fruit’ and the ‘first-born of all creation,’ certainly
not the first created. And the prophet says, ‘From the womb before the morning-
star I begot you, certainly not ‘I created you’. But also Solomon: ‘Before all the
hills he begets me’. For ‘the Lord created me at the beginning of his ways,’ referring
to the Lord’s body animated by his mind. Saint Gregory accepted this sense in his
work On the Son. ‘He begets’ refers to his divinity. Therefore since all have decreed
to use ‘begetting’ and not ‘creation’ in the case of the only Word and Son, what is
the meaning of the present text, the beginning of God’s creation? Nothing other
than the ruler of God’s creation, and he who has the rule over all things. For since
the Father has made all things through the Son, it follows that as the maker and
craftsman of the universe, who brings the universe into being from non-existence,
he rules over what has been brought into being by him.’55

119
 Juan Hernández Jr

Jesus does not possess base bodily functions.

Rev 3:16 μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι (εμιν ‫א‬c) ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου rell.
‘I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.’

παυσε (sic. παῦσαι) τοῦ στόματός σου ‫*א‬.

‘to stop your mouth.’

Both God and the Lamb are ascribed blessing, honour and glory from the Almighty.

Rev 5:13 τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ
δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ‫א‬c, rell.
‘to the One who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honour
and the glory and the power.’

τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ

δόξα παντοκράτορος ‫*א‬, arm3.
‘to the One who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honour
and the glory of the almighty.’

Arius: Ἤγουν Τριάς ἐστι δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις…μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δόξαις ἐπ’ ἄπειρον.

‘There exists a trinity in unequal glories... In their glories, one is more glorious than
another in infinite degree.’56

Jesus ‘summons’ Jezebel.

Rev 2:22 βάλλω αὐτήν rell.
‘I am throwing her…’

βάλω αὐτήν ‫א‬c, P 046, 1006, 1611, 2050, 2329, 2351, al, gig, t, vgcl, sa; Tert.
‘I will throw her…’

καλῶ αὐτήν ‫*א‬.

‘I will summon her…’

Jesus opens the door of salvation.

Rev 3:20 ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν rell.
‘if anyone hears my voice and opens the door…’

ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξω τὴν θύραν ‫א‬, 2053*vid.
‘if anyone hears my voice and I will open the door…’

120
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?

Possible concerns over the use of incarnational language

Rev 7:15 καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου σκηνώσει ἐπ‘ αὐτούς rell.
‘And the one who sits on the throne will tabernacle with them.’

καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου γινώσκει (ἐπ‘ ‫א‬c) αὐτούς ‫*א‬.
‘And the one who sits on the throne knows them.’

Rev 21:3 καὶ σκηνώσει μετ’ αὐτῶν

‘And he will tabernacle with them.’

καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν μετ’ αὐτῶν ‫*א‬, 1611, 2050, pc, gig, vgmss, syh.
‘And he tabernacled with them.’

Rev 12:12 καὶ οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς σκηνοῦντες rell.

‘And those who tabernacle in them.’

καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν αὐτοῖς ‫*א‬, 2344, al.

‘And those who dwell in them.’

cf. John 1:14 καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν

‘And he tabernacled with them.’

Those ‘under the earth’ are excluded from throne-room scene.

Rev 5:3 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ
βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό rell.
‘And no one was able in heaven or on earth or under the earth to open the book or
look into it.’

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό
‫א‬, 1854, 2344, t.
‘And no one was able in heaven or on earth to open the book or look into it.’

Rev 5:13 καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς
θαλάσσης καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα ἤκουσα λέγοντας rell.
‘And every creature which was in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on
the sea and all that is in them I heard saying…’

καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς
πάντα ἤκουσα λέγοντας ‫*א‬, 1854, 2050, 2053, 2329, 2344, pc, ar, vgww, bo.
‘And every creature which was in heaven and on earth and on the sea and all that is
in them I heard saying…’

121
 Juan Hernández Jr

God’s angels do not engage in war.57

Rev 9:15 ἐλύθησαν...ἵνα ἀπoκτείνωσιν τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων rell.
‘They were unleashed in order that they should kill a third of humanity.’

ἐλύθησαν...ἵνα μὴ ἀπoκτείνωσιν τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ‫א‬.

‘They were unleashed in order that they not should kill a third of humanity.’

ἐλυπήθησαν...ἵνα ἀπoκτείνωσιν τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων A.

‘They were saddened that they should have to kill a third of humanity.’

Gaius: non est scriptum angelos bellum gessuros esse, nec tertiam partem hominem
perituram esse. sed ‘surgit gens contra gentem’.
‘It is not written for angels to be waging war or for a third part of humanity to
perish, but ‘nation will rise against nation’.’ 58

Andrew of Caesarea on:

Rev 9:15 Τούτος φασί τινες τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους Μιχαἠλ εἶναι καἰ Γαβριἠλ καἰ Οὐριἠλ καἰ
Ῥαφαήλ, τοὺς προσδεδεμένους τῇ εὐφροσύνῃ τῆς θείας θεωρίας, ἀπολύεσθαι ἐν τῇ
ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως μετὰ ἀναριθμήτων ἀγγέλων εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀσεβῶν κατάκρισιν, δι’ ὧν τὸ
τρίτον ἀφανίζεσθαι. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τούτους οἶμαι πονηροτάτους εἶναι δαίμονας δεθέντας ἐν
τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίᾳ...59

‘Some say that the four angels are Michael, Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael who
have been bound by the gladness of the divine vision, to be united on the day of
judgment with innumerable angels for the condemnation of the impious, of whom
one third are to be destroyed. I myself think that these four angels are the most
cunning demons who were bound upon the coming of Christ…’60

cf. Rev 8:13 Καὶ διὰ τούτων τὸ συμπαθὲς καὶ φιλάνθρωπον τῶν θείων ἀγγέλων δείκνυται, θεομιμήτως
οἰκτειρόντων παιδευομένους τοὐς πλημμελήσαντας...61

‘Through these is also shown the sympathy and philanthropy of divine angels
imitating God, pitying those sinners being punished…’62

122
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?

bi bl iog r a p h y
Aland, K., and others, eds, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edn (Stuttgart, 1993)
Constantinou, E., ‘Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East’, 2
vols (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Laval, 2008)
Haussleiter, J., ed., Victorini episcopi Petavionensis Opera, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum
Latinorum, 49, 96 vols (Vienna, 1916; repr. New York, 1965)
Hernández Jr, J., ‘Andrew of Caesarea and His Reading of Revelation: Catechesis and Paraenesis’,
in Die Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte-Konzepte-Rezeption/The Revelation of John: Contexts-
Concepts-Reception, ed. by J. Frey, J. A. Kelhoffer, and F. Tóth, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament, 287, (Tübingen, 2012), pp. 755–74
— ‘The Apocalypse in Codex Alexandrinus: Its Singular Readings and Scribal Habits’,
in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R.
Holladay, ed. by P. Gray and G. R. O’Day, Novum Testamentum Supplement, 129 (Leiden/
Boston, 2008), pp. 349–52
— ‘The Creation of a Fourth-Century Witness to the Andreas Text Type: A Misreading in the
Apocalypse’s Textual History’, New Testament Studies, 60.1 (2014), 106–20.
— ‘Recensional Activity and the Transmission of the Septuagint in John’s Apocalypse: Codex
Sinaiticus and Other Witnesses’, in Die Johannesoffenbarung – ihr Text und ihre Auslegung, ed.
by M. Labahn and M. Karrer, Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte, 38 (Leipzig, 2012), pp.
83–98
— ‘The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism’, Journal of
Biblical Literature, 130.1 (2011), 183–96
— Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of
Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament, 218 (Tübingen, 2006)
— ‘A Scribal Solution to a Problematic Measurement in the Apocalypse’, New Testament
Studies, 56.2 (2010), 273–78
Metzger, B. M., and B. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption,
and Restoration, 4th edn (Oxford, 2005)
Schmid, J., Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, 3 vols (Munich, 1955–56)
Schmid, U., ‘Scribes and Variants: Sociology and Typology’, in Textual Variation: Theological and
Social Tendencies, ed. by Houghton and Parker, Texts and Studies, Third Series, 6 (Piscataway,
NJ, 2008)
Sedlacek, I., ed., Dionysius Bar Salibi: In Apocalypsim, Actus et Epistulas Catholicas, Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 60 (Louvain, 1954)
Suggit, J. N., trans., Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, Fathers of the Church Series,
112 (Washington, 2006)
Weinrich, W. C., Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 12 (Downers Grove,
2005)
Williams, R., Arius: Heresy and Tradition, rev. edn (Grand Rapids, 2001)

no t e s
1 The Greek throughout this article is presented in lower-case letters, including that of Codex
Sinaiticus. This is to aid the reader when comparing the text of Codex Sinaiticus to other readings,
but it should be remembered that Codex Sinaiticus is actually a majuscule manuscript and is
represented by upper-case letters elsewhere in this volume.
2 See appendix for a full listing of these under the sub-categories: orthography, nonsense
readings, dittography, and haplography.

123
 Juan Hernández Jr
3 Two scribes transcribed the text of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus. Scribe D copied the
first 34 ½ lines of the Apocalypse (Revelation 1:1–5, up to and including the word νεκρῶν). Scribe
A copied the rest of the book. See Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, p. 18.
4 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 127*.
5 B. M. Metzger and B. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edn (Oxford, 2005), p. 255.
6 On the question of the Apocalypse’s multiple correctors in Codex Sinaiticus, see J.
Hernández Jr, ‘The Creation of a Fourth-Century Witness to the Andreas Text Type: A Misreading
in the Apocalypse’s Textual History’, New Testament Studies, 60.1 (2014), 106–20.
7 Words ‘gained’ and ‘lost’ were calculated against the reconstructed text of Nestle-Aland27.
8 Not every nomen sacrum is a textual variant. Only nomina sacra that differ from the read-
ings in the eclectic text of Nestle-Aland27 are considered actual variants. All of the nomina sacra
of the Apocalypse are nonetheless included here as they underscore yet another important way in
which the textual appearance of Codex Sinaiticus differs from that of modern critical editions. See
the appendix for a full listing of the nomina sacra in Revelation.
9 The unclean/demonic spirits of 16:13–14 are rendered as nomina sacra. See Tischendorf,
Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 132.
10 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 130.
11 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 134.
12 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 134, 134*.
13 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 126*.
14 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 135.
15 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 128*.
16 Parker, Introduction, p. 244.
17 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 129*.
18 See Victorini episcopi Petavionensis Opera, ed. by Haussleiter, Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 49, 6 vols (Vienna, 1916; repr. New York, 1965), p. 88; W. C.
Weinrich, Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 12 (Downers Grove, 2005), p.
146.
19 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 134.
20 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 134.
21 12,000 stadia = 1,500 miles = 2414.016 kilometres (1 mile = 1.609344 kilometres).
22 144 cubits = 75 yards = 68.58 metres (1 yard = 0.9144 metres).
23 ‘Edge’ is one of the attested meanings of χεῖλος. For a full discussion of the semantic range
of χεῖλος and its connection to the LXX of Ezekiel 43 see J. Hernández Jr, ‘A Scribal Solution to a
Problematic Measurement in the Apocalypse’, New Testament Studies, 56.2 (2010), 273–78.
24 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 128, 130, 131*.
25 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 135.
26 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 128*.
27 On Andrew of Caesarea’s application of the Trisagion Hymn to each member of the Trinity
see: J. Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, 3 vols (Munich,
1955–56): i, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andreas von Kaisarea, Münchener theologische
Studien 1, Historische Abteilung 1, p. 15, ll. 12–15.
28 The omission of the Apocalypse from the lectionary, nonetheless, remains a telling detail.
Perhaps a distinction is to be made between its popular use and that which is sanctioned by the
church.
29 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 127*.
30 R. Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, rev. edn (Grand Rapids, 2001), p. 102.
31 The harmonization in Revelation 3:14, however, is not merely an anti-Arian redaction, but
perhaps even an early scribal example of scriptura scripturam interpretatur, ‘scripture interpreting
scripture’. After all, the scribe did not simply expunge the problematic reading from his text — he
replaced it with another reading from elsewhere in scripture. Perhaps it is also worth noting that

124
 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?
in Colossians 2:10, the clause ‘who is the head of every ruler and authority’ (ὅς ἐστιν κεφαλὴ πάσης
ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας), is similarly replaced with ‘who is the head of every ruler of the church’ (ὅς ἐστιν
κεφαλὴ πάσης τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκκλησίας) in Codex Sinaiticus — another harmonization to Colossians
1:18. See Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 86*.
32 The seventh century corrector of Codex Sinaiticus reverts Revelation 3:14 back to the
problematic title, ‘the beginning of the creation of God’.
33 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 127*.
34 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 128.
35 Williams, Arius (2001), p. 102 (my italics).
36 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 127.
37 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 127*.
38 See appendix.
39 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 128.
40 One is reminded of Isaiah’s words: ‘For Sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you’
(Isaiah 39:18 NRSV).
41 Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863), ii, 129*.
42 See appendix for Gaius’s specific objection to Revelation 9:15.
43 The various stages in the process of the production/reproduction of manuscripts must be
distinguished. See U. Schmid, ‘Scribes and Variants: Sociology and Typology’, in Textual Variation:
Theological and Social Tendencies, ed. by H. A. G. Houghton and D. C. Parker, Texts and Studies,
Third Series, 6 (Piscataway, NJ, 2008), pp. 1–23.
44 The pattern of orthographic variations makes it unlikely that the switch from ἶρις to ἱερεῖς
in Revelation 4:3 is vowel confusion in both syllables. The variant is probably a deliberate change.
45 The word ποιαν (‘what’), which forms part of the phrase ποιαν ωραν (‘what hour’), is copied
as οιαν. It would appear that the initial π has been dropped, leaving us with a nonsense reading.
There may be several reasons, however, to rethink this. First, the scribes never corrected it. Second,
the reading does appear to be supported by a handful of witnesses. Third, of all the readings
involving spelling errors or missing consonants, nowhere else is the initial π dropped in the Codex’s
text of the Apocalypse. The most compelling consideration, however, is semantic: οιαν can easily
be read as the accusative form of the relative pronoun οιος — a word that also means ‘what’ and is
roughly synonymous with ποια. It is further worth noting that the very same relative pronoun, οιος,
also functions adjectivally elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. 2 Timothy 3:11, οιους διωγμους).
And yet, the explanation for the variant appears to be much simpler than a two-step process of a
grammatical change and a substituted pronoun. The variation appears to have resulted from the
confusion of a single letter. If one were to write γνως ποιαν next to γνωση οιαν in an uninterrupted
uncial script, one would find that — but for a single letter — they are nearly identical. The simplest
explanation is that the uncial Π has been confused with the uncial Η, resulting in the appearance
of a grammatical change in one word and the substitution of another. This is an instance where
the confusion of a single letter serendipitously results in the creation of two ‘meaningful’ variants.
Future apparatuses should thus either include both variants or neither. They stand or fall together.
46 J. Hernández Jr, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular
Readings of Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament, 218 (Tübingen, 2006), pp. 69, 74.
47 Hernández, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences (2006), p. 154, n. 130.
48 This is an apparently uncorrected form in Revelation 1:9. See Tischendorf, Sinaiticus (1863),
ii, 126*.
49 For more on the question of whether scribes of the Apocalypse adapted their texts to the
LXX see J. Hernández Jr., ‘Recensional Activity and the Transmission of the Septuagint in John’s
Apocalypse: Codex Sinaiticus and Other Witnesses’, in Die Johannesoffenbarung – ihr Text und
ihre Auslegung, ed. by M. Labahn and M. Karrer, Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte, 38
(Leipzig, 2012), pp. 83–98.

125
 Juan Hernández Jr
50 Victorini episcopi Petavionensis Opera, ed. by J. Haussleiter, Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 49, 96 vols (Vienna, 1916; repr. New York, 1965), p. 88.
51 W. C. Weinrich, Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, 12 (Downers
Grove, 2005), p. 146.
52 This variant is explored more fully in J. Hernández Jr, ‘A Scribal Solution to a Problematic
Measurement in the Apocalypse’, New Testament Studies, 56.2 (2010), 273–78.
53 Williams, Arius (2001), p. 102 (my italics).
54 Marc De Groote, Oecumenii commentarius in Apocalypsin, TEG 8 (Leuven, 1999), 101.
55 Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, trans. by J. N. Suggit, Fathers of the Church
Series, 112 (Washington, 2006), p. 50.
56 My italics.
57 For Andrew of Caesarea’s highly positive view of God’s angelic host see J. Hernández
Jr, ‘Andrew of Caesarea and His Reading of Revelation: Catechesis and Paraenesis’, in Die
Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte-Konzepte-Rezeption/The Revelation of John: Contexts-Concepts-
Reception, ed. by J. Frey, J. A. Kelhoffer, and F. Tóth, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament, 287, (Tübingen, 2012), pp. 755–74; cf. idem., ‘The Relevance of Andrew of
Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 130.1 (2011),
183–96.
58 Dionysius Bar Salibi: In Apocalypsim, Actus et Epistulas Catholicas, ed. by I. Sedlacek,
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 60 (Louvain, 1954), p. 10 (my translation). For
a full discussion of the exegetical debate over Revelation 9:15 between Gaius and Hippolytus of
Rome see J. Hernández Jr, ‘The Apocalypse in Codex Alexandrinus: Its Singular Readings and
Scribal Habits’, in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of
Carl R. Holladay, ed. by P. Gray and G. R. O’Day, Novum Testamentum Supplement, 129 (Leiden/
Boston, 2008), pp. 349–52.
59 Schmid, Der Apokalypse-Kommentar, 101, ll. 4–7.
60 E. Constantinou, ‘Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the
East’, 2 vols (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Laval, 2008), II, 111 (my italics).
61 Schmid, Der Apokalypse Kommentar, 95, ll.7–9.
62 Constantinou, ‘Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse’ (2008), II, 106 (my italics).

126