This appendix documents the rationale for three types of text-critical decisions in Revelation: depatures from 𝔐K, choice of variants when 𝔐K is split, departures from Hodges and Farstad (HF) and/or Robinson and Pierpont (RP). When the main 𝔐K reading has at least twice as much support as any secondary reading, I let this external evidence outweigh any considerations of internal evidence. Internal evidence is often highly subjective and, consequently, not the most convincing. Nevertheless, when external evidence is closely divided, internal evidence is a necessary factor in the decision-making process. I present my considerations of internal evidence not with the goal of providing definitive answers but of presenting plausible suggestions.

1:11 φιλαδελφειαν 𝔐K-51 HF RP ¦ φιλαδελφιαν 𝔐K-26

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward φιλαδελφειαν.

Internal: Itacism is common in Revelation and is generally not a deciding factor.

(See also 3:7.)

1:13 υιον 𝔐K-53 HF ¦ υιω 𝔐K-28 RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward υιον.

Internal: It seems more likely that scribes would change υιον to the more natural υιω than vice versa.

(See also 14:14.)

1:14 και ως 𝔐K-40 HF ¦ ως 𝔐K-36 RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between και ως and ως.

Internal: The omission of και is likely due to homeoteleuton, as the preceding word is λευκαι.

1:17 επεσον 𝔐K-43 ¦ επεσα 𝔐K-39 HF RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between επεσον and επεσα.

Internal: These are two alternate forms of the same word. In 22:8, επεσον is the clear reading of 𝔐K.

1:18 κλειδας 𝔐K-70 HF ¦ κλεις 𝔐K-12 RP

External: 𝔐K supports κλειδας.

Internal: These are two alternate spellings of the same word. Because the plural accusative does not occur anywhere else in Revelation, there is no compelling evidence to prefer one over the other.

2:8 εσχατος 𝔐K-63 ¦ εσχατος ος 𝔐K-18 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports εσχατος.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoteleuton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. It is possible that ος was added by scribes to bring the text into greater conformity with the introductions to the letters to the other churches, which contain appositives. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

2:10 ημερας 𝔐K-81 HF ¦ ημερων 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports ημερας.

Internal: The word ημερας is the normal accusative of extent of time. If scribes read ημερας as a singular genitive rather than a plural accusative, they might have changed it from a singular to a plural to match δεκα. While ημερων appears to be the harder reading, apparently it was not too difficult to be adopted by 𝔐C.

2:13 αις 𝔐K-88 HF ¦ εν αις 𝔐K-0 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of εν.

Internal: 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

2:14 αλλα 𝔐K-75 HF ¦ αλλ 𝔐K-6 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports αλλα.

Internal: The longer form is used before a vowel in 2:4. Why not here also? It seems that scribes would be more likely to drop the final letter α before a vowel than to add it.

(See also 2:20.)

2:15 νικολαιτων 𝔐K-66 HF ¦ των νικολαιτων 𝔐K-16 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of των.

Internal: The article may have been added by scribes to bring the text into conformity with 2:6. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

2:18 θυατειροις 𝔐K-37 HF RP ¦ θυατειρη 𝔐K-31

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between θυατειροις and θυατειρη.

Internal: The reading θυατειρη may be an attempt to match the singular number in the opening portions of the letters to the other churches.

2:20 αλλα 𝔐K-63 HF ¦ αλλ 𝔐K-19 RP

External: 𝔐K supports αλλα.

Internal: The longer form is used before a vowel in 2:4. Why not here also? It seems that scribes would be more likely to drop the final letter α before a vowel than to add it.

(See also 2:14.)

2:25 αν ηξω 𝔐K-17 HF RP ¦ ανοιξω 𝔐K-66

External: 𝔐K supports ανοιξω.

Internal: The reading ανοιξω appears to be the result of itacism (η → οι), perhaps even in the autograph. Because uncials do not have spaces between words, later minuscule scribes read this as ανοιξω rather than αν οιξω. However, ανοιξω is nearly unintelligible in this context; in its active form the verb is almost always transitive.

2:27 κεραμικα 𝔐K-46 HF RP ¦ κεραμεικα 𝔐K-31

External: 𝔐K leans toward κεραμικα.

Internal: Itacism is common in Revelation and is generally not a deciding factor.

3:1 και [third] 𝔐K-79 HF ¦ οτι 𝔐K-4 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports και.

Internal: Both readings make sense. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one over the other.

3:2 στηρισον 𝔐K-46 RP ¦ τηρησον 𝔐K-27 ¦ στηριξον 𝔐K-11 HF

External: 𝔐K leans toward στηρισον.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes would inadvertently drop the letter σ and that there would be interchange between the letters ι and η. The reading chosen by HF does not have enough support among the 𝔐K manuscripts to be given strong consideration.

3:2 εμελλες 𝔐K-43 HF RP ¦ ημελλες 𝔐K-37

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between εμελλες and ημελλες.

Internal: 𝔐K manuscripts prefer εδυνατο over ηδυνατο in 5:3, 7:9, 14:3, and 15:8.

(See also 10:4.)

3:3 ειληφας 𝔐K-80 ¦ ειληφας και ηκουσας και τηρει 𝔐K-4 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και ηκουσας και τηρει.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoarcton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. The longer reading is against the author's formula in 2:5. It is possible that it is a gloss reminiscent of 1:3. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

3:3 γνωση 𝔐K-68 RP ¦ γνως 𝔐K-15 HF

External: 𝔐K supports γνωση.

Internal: The words ου μη generally anticipate the use of the subjunctive. It seems more likely that scribes would change the future indicative to an aorist subjunctive than vice versa.

3:5 ουτος 𝔐K-53 HF RP ¦ ουτω[ς] 𝔐K-30

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward ουτος.

Internal: Both variants make good sense, and scribes frequently used the letters ο and ω interchangeably. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one over the other.

3:7 φιλαδελφεια 𝔐K-46 HF RP ¦ φιλαδελφια 𝔐K-39

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between φιλαδελφεια and φιλαδελφια.

Internal: 𝔐K leans heavily toward φιλαδελφεια in 1:11.

3:12 απο [first] 𝔐K-60 HF ¦ εκ 𝔐K-24 RP

External: 𝔐K supports απο.

Internal: The repetition of απο is the harder reading stylistically. It seems more likely that scribes would change απο to εκ than vice versa.

3:12 ονομα [third] 𝔐K-72 ¦ ονομα μου 𝔐K-12 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of μου.

Internal: In 2:17, the author suggests that the new name is not the name of Christ. The phrase το ονομα το καινον in 3:12 appears to be a reference to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 62:2, which reads το ονομα το καινον in some manuscripts and το ονομα σου το καινον in other manuscripts. Regardless of which variant the author of Revelation may have had in mind, the text would be referring to a new name the person was to receive rather than to a new name that Christ was to receive. Consequently, the omission of μου appears to make better sense of the Isaiah 62:2 reference. While το ονομα το καινον may seem awkward at first glance, the definite article is likely used in a possessive sense. The addition of μου may also be an assimilation to 2:3, 2:13, and 3:8, which all have the phrase το ονομα μου. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

3:19 ζηλευε 𝔐K-74 HF ¦ ζηλωσον 𝔐K-3 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports ζηλευε.

Internal: The use of the aorist might have been an attempt to bring the command into conformity with the command that follows. However, the author mixes present and aorist commands elsewhere, such as 2:5.

4:2 ευθεως 𝔐K-77 HF ¦ και ευθεως 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

4:4 κυκλοθεν 𝔐K-62 HF ¦ και κυκλοθεν 𝔐K-17 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of και.

Internal: 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

4:7 τεταρτον 𝔐K-75 HF ¦ τεταρτον ζωον 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of ζωον.

Internal: In chapter 16, the author does not consistently mention the noun αγγελος in the ordinal list. Thus, it would not be out of character for the author to omit ζωον here. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

4:8 και [first] 𝔐K-56 ¦ και τα 𝔐K-36 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward the omission of τα.

Internal: It is possible that the article was added by scribes to more concrently identify the four living creatures in this verse as the same living creatures introduced in the prior verse. It seems more likely that scribes would add τα than omit it.

4:8 αγιος (9 times) 𝔐K-42 HF ¦ αγιος (3 times) 𝔐K-32 RP

External: 𝔐K leans toward the longer variant.

Internal: If the shorter variant were original, it would be harder to explain the various counting mistakes that occur in manuscripts: αγιος 4 times (1 manuscript), αγιος 6 times (5 manuscripts), αγιος 7 times (1 manuscript), αγιος 8 times (4 manuscripts), and αγιος 13 times (1 manuscript). Both variants are attested in uncials, and αγιος occurs 8 times in Codex Sinaiticus, which suggests that the longer variant is at least as early as the fourth century. It would be quite difficult to read and write αγιος nine times in an uncial text, undoubtedly leading to omissions due to homeoteleuton and/or homeoarcton.

5:8 προσευχων 𝔐K-34 ¦ προσευχαι 𝔐K-42 HF RP ¦ αι προσευχαι 𝔐K-6

External: 𝔐K leans toward προσευχαι.

Internal: The reading προσευχων is grammatically awkward, as the reader anticipates a form of προσευχη that will match the case of the relative pronoun αι. It seems more likely that scribes would adjust the text from προσευχων to προσευχαι than vice versa. While προσευχαι flows better grammatically, the sense is more difficult, as it equates the golden bowls themselves with the prayers of the saints rather than the incense inside the bowls. Yet it is the smoke of the incense that rises to heaven, carrying the prayers to God.

5:10 βασιλευσουσιν 𝔐K-50 HF RP ¦ βασιλευουσιν 𝔐K-41

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between βασιλευσουσιν and βασιλευουσιν.

Internal: According to 20:6, the reigning will happen in the future. It seems more likely that the letter σ was inadvertently dropped than added.

5:13 τω θρονω 𝔐K-60 HF ¦ του θρονου 𝔐K-20 RP

External: 𝔐K supports τω θρονω.

Internal: The dative and the genetive are both used in Revelation with the phrase καθημαι επι. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one over the other.

6:10 φωνην μεγαλην 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ φωνη μεγαλη 𝔐K-11 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports φωνην μεγαλην.

Internal: The dative is more natural and occurs nine other times in Revelation in similar constructions. Thus, it seems more likely that scribes would change the accusative to dative than vice versa.

6:11 αυτοις [first] 𝔐K-85 HF ¦ αυτοις εκαστω 𝔐K-6 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of εκαστω.

Internal: The addition of εκαστω was likely added to clarify that each person was to receive a robe rather than only one robe being given to all of them. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

6:14 ελισσομενος 𝔐K-63 HF ¦ ελισσομενον 𝔐K-17 RP

External: 𝔐K supports ελισσομενος.

Internal: The neuter ελισσομενον is far more natural here. It seems much more likely that scribes would change ελισσομενος to ελισσομενον than vice versa.

6:16 τω θρονω 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ του θρονου 𝔐K-11 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports τω θρονω.

Internal: The dative and the genetive are both used in Revelation with the phrase καθημα επι. External evidence favors the dative in this case.

(See also 5:13.)

7:11 αυτου 𝔐K-75 HF ¦ — 𝔐K-8 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the inclusion of αυτου.

Internal: The omission of αυτου could be due to homeoteleuton, as the preceding word is θρονου. However, the omission may also be intentional, as the referent of αυτου is not immediately clear from the context, and the possessive pronoun is stylistically awkward. It seems more likely that scribes would either intentionally or unintentionally omit αυτου than add it.

7:14 επλατυναν 𝔐K-52 ¦ επλυναν 𝔐K-31 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward επλατυναν.

Internal: Scribes may have either inadvertently dropped the letters ατ or intentionally changed the text to read επλυναν, thinking that it made better sense. However, Pseudo-Athanasius in Four Discourses against the Arians misquotes Revelation 22:14 as, “Blessed are those who broaden their robes.” Thus, the idea of a broadened robe carrying positive connotations was not a foreign concept. This is also evidenced to a certain extent by the scribes and Pharisees who made their phylacteries broad and their tassles long to receive public recognition (Matthew 23:5). In Ancient Rome, senators wore robes with broad purple stripes, offering a larger and more obvious field for elaboration. Thus, the idea of broad clothing marking status conferred on those coming out the great tribulation is not without merit.

8:3 δωση 𝔐K-50 RP ¦ δωσει 𝔐K-30 HF

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward δωση.

Internal: Itacism is common in Revelation and is generally not a deciding factor.

8:13 τους κατοικουντας 𝔐K-82 HF ¦ τοις κατοικουσιν 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports τους κατοικουντας.

Internal: The word ουαι is more naturally followed by the dative. It seems more likely that scribes would change the accusative to the dative than vice versa.

9:2 και 𝔐K-79 ¦ και ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου και 𝔐K-4 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και ηνοιξε το φρεαρ της αβυσσου.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoteleuton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. The longer text could very well be a gloss to explain what the author left implied. In 11:5–6, the author mentions the ability of the two witnesses to devour their enemies with fire from their mouths, shut the sky so that no rain falls, turn the waters into blood, and strike the earth with any plague. However, the author does not state that they actually did so; it is left implied. Similarly, in this text the author seems to have left implicit the idea that the star that was given the key did indeed open the pit of the abyss. It would seem tempting for scribes to want to make this implication explicit, and 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

9:11 αββαδων 𝔐K-26 HF RP ¦ αβααδδων 𝔐K-20 ¦ αββααδδων 𝔐K-14 ¦ αββααδων 𝔐K-10

External: 𝔐K is divided between various spellings, with αββαδων having the most support among 𝔐K manuscripts.

Internal: There is no compelling evidence to prefer one spelling over another.

9:14 λεγοντος 𝔐K-73 HF ¦ λεγουσαν 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports λεγοντος.

Internal: The word λεγουσαν agrees in gender and case with φωνην μιαν. The word λεγοντος appears to be an awkward assimilation to θεου. It seems far more likely that scribes would change λεγοντος to λεγουσαν than vice versa.

9:20 και 𝔐K-78 ¦ και τα χαλκα και 𝔐K-6 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και τα χαλκα.

Internal: Although this might appear to be a case of omission due to homeoarcton, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same omission. It is possible that the longer reading is an addition to bring the text into conformity with Daniel 5:23. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

9:21 φαρμακων 𝔐K-66 HF ¦ φαρμακειων 𝔐K-12 RP

External: 𝔐K supports φαρμακων.

Internal: The majority 𝔐K reading is the genitive plural of φαρμακον, while the minority 𝔐K reading is the genitive plural of φαρμακεια. Both can be used with the connotation of sorcery. The authore uses φαρμακεια in 18:23, but this is not compelling enough evidence to outweight the strong external evidence in support of φαρμακων.

10:4 εμελλον 𝔐K-43 HF ¦ ημελλον 𝔐K-40

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between εμελλον and ημελλον.

Internal: 𝔐K manuscripts prefer εδυνατο over ηδυνατο in 5:3, 7:9, 14:3, and 15:8.

(See also 3:2.)

11:1 εγειρε 𝔐K-48 HF ¦ εγειραι 𝔐K-36

External: 𝔐K leans toward εγειρε.

Internal: Scribes may have wanted to make the command an aorist to match the command that follows. However, the author mixes present and aorist commands elsewhere, such as 2:5.

11:4 εστωτες 𝔐K-63 HF ¦ εστωσαι 𝔐K-19 RP

External: 𝔐K supports εστωτες.

Internal: The word εστωσαι agrees in gender with the antecedent λυχνιαι, while εστωτες agrees with the more distant antecedent ουτοι. It seems more likely that scribes would change εστωτες to agree with λυχνιαι than changing εστωσαι to agree with ουτοι.

11:13 εν 𝔐K-80 ¦ και εν 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

11:15 λεγοντες 𝔐K-44 HF ¦ λεγουσαι 𝔐K-39 RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between λεγοντες and λεγουσαι.

Internal: Because λεγουσαι agrees in gender with the antecedent φωναι, it seems more likely that scribes would change λεγοντες to λεγουσαι. However, in 9:14, 𝔐K prefers the masculine participle with the feminine noun φωνη.

11:16 θρονου του θεου οι καθηνται 𝔐K-70 HF ¦ θεου καθημενοι 𝔐K-3 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports θρονου του θεου οι καθηνται.

Internal: The majority 𝔐K reading is a much harder reading stylistically. It seems more likely that a scribe would seek to smooth out the majority 𝔐K reading by changing οι καθηνται to καθημενοι. The omission of του θεου could be unintentional due to homeoteleuton, or it could also be intentional to eliminate redundancy given the presence of τω θεω later in the verse.

11:16 επεσον 𝔐K-50 HF RP ¦ επεσαν 𝔐K-33

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward επεσον.

Internal: These are two alternate forms of the same word. The preferred form throughout Revelation is επεσον.

11:19 ηνοιχθη 𝔐K-79 HF ¦ ηνοιγη 𝔐K-4 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports ηνοιχθη.

Internal: The author writes ηνοιγη in 15:5, but he writes ηνεωχθη in 20:12. Any arguments from internal evidence would be quite weak in this case compared to the external evidence.

13:4 τις [second] 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ και τις 𝔐K-10 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

13:8 αυτον 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ αυτω 𝔐K-11 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports αυτον.

Internal: In 14:7, the author writes αυτον after προσκυνεω. In 19:10, he writes αυτω after προσκυνεω. Thus, there is no strong argument from internal evidence for preferring one over the other.

13:8 ων ουτε 𝔐K-46 ¦ ων ου 𝔐K-34 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans toward ων ουτε.

Internal: The word following ουτε is γεγραπται. In uncial script, the letters τε and γε look very similar (ΤΕ ¦ ΓΕ). The letters τε may have been omitted due to homeoarcton.

13:10 δει αυτον 𝔐K-80 HF ¦ αποκτενει δει αυτον εν μαχαιρα 𝔐K-5 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports δει αυτον.

Internal: The terseness of the majority 𝔐K reading seemed to entice scribes to fill in the gaps, which accounts for the multipicity of readings for this variant unit. If one of the longer readings were original, it would be hard to imagine scribes intentionally shortening it. At the same time, it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same unintentional omission. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

13:11 κερατα 𝔐K-72 ¦ κερατα δυο 𝔐K-9 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of δυο.

Internal: Throughout Revelation any references to horns are accompanied by a number. In this instance alone, the horns are mentioned as being like the horns of another animal, which may indicate that the focus is not on the number but on the type of horn, especially since it is common knowledge that lambs have two horns. Scribes may have added δυο to assimilate this text to the others that mention the number of horns, finding significance in the fact that it was the second beast (hence two horns). However, 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K, and it is unlikely that multiple independent streams would make the same unintentional omission.

13:14 πληγην 𝔐K-90 HF ¦ την πληγην 𝔐K-0 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of την.

Internal: Scribes may have added the article to refer more specifically to the wound mentioned in 13:3 and 13:12. However, the article is not needed, and 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

13:16 δωσωσιν 𝔐K-57 HF RP ¦ δωσουσιν 𝔐K-24

External: 𝔐K supports δωσωσιν.

Internal: The word ινα generally anticipates the use of the subjunctive. While the argument could be made that it would be more likely for scribes to change δωσουσιν to δωσωσιν, in this case the external evidence outweighs the internal evidence. {Note: While the Text und Textwert variant includes three words in the variant unit, the only major difference in 𝔐K is between δωσωσιν and δωσουσιν, with the reading δωσωσιν being dominant.}

13:16 χειρος 𝔐K-63 ¦ της χειρος 𝔐K-19 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of της.

Internal: In 8:4 and 19:2 the author also uses an anarthrous χειρος followed by a possessive pronoun. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

13:18 ο 𝔐K-73 HF ¦ και ο 𝔐K-8 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of και.

Internal: 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

14:3 ουδε εις 𝔐K-49 ¦ ουδεις 𝔐K-31 HF RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward ουδε εις.

Internal: It would have been easy for a scribe to unintetionally drop one of the epsilons.

14:4 εαν 𝔐K-75 HF ¦ αν 𝔐K-6 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports εαν.

Internal: In the New Testament the words εαν and αν are used interchangeably after οπου. There is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one over the other.

14:8 αυτης 𝔐K-39 HF RP ¦ ταυτης 𝔐K-38

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between αυτης and ταυτης.

Internal: The word αυτης follows πορνεια in 2:21, 17:2, 17:4, and 19:2, making ταυτης the harder reading. While a strong argument could be made that scribes changed ταυτης to the more familiar and stylistically preferable αυτης, there is no clear referant that the word ταυτης seems to be pointing to. Because αυτης and ταυτης differ by only one letter, it appears that ταυτης is simply a copying error.

14:14 υιον 𝔐K-51 HF ¦ υιω 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward υιον.

Internal: It seems more likely that scribes would change υιον to the more natural υιω than vice versa.

(See also 1:13.)

14:16 τη νεφελη 𝔐K-63 ¦ την νεφελην 𝔐 K-22 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports τη νεφελη.

Internal: 𝔐K uses the dative in 7:10 as well. The use of the accusative could be an attempt to bring this text into conformity with 14:14.

14:18 εν κραυγη 𝔐K-54 HF ¦ κραυγη 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of εν.

Internal: The omission of εν could be due to homoeoteleuton, as the previous word is εφωνησε(ν).

14:18 ηκμασεν η σταφυλη της γης 𝔐K-83 HF ¦ ηκμασαν αι σταφυλαι αυτης 𝔐K-0 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports ηκμασεν η σταφυλη της γης.

Internal: Both readings make good sense. In Matthew 7:16 and Luke 6:44, the singular form is used in a collective sense. However, there is no compelling internal evidence to prefer one reading over the other. And the external evidence far outweighs any arguments that might be made from internal evidence.

14:19 εξεβαλεν 𝔐K-72 HF ¦ εβαλεν 𝔐K-10 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports εξεβαλεν.

Internal: Scribes may have been tempted to change εξεβαλεν to εβαλεν to match εβαλεν later in the verse. Scribes may have also found the use of εξεβαλεν to be a bit awkward with the preposition εις, prompting them to change εξεβαλεν to εβαλεν.

15:2 της εικονος και εκ του θηριου 𝔐K-75 ¦ του θηριου και εκ της εικονος 𝔐K-5 HF RP

External: The majority 𝔐K reading is by far the harder reading. It seems likely that scribes would have change the reading to bring it into conformity with the pattern seen elsewhere (14:9,11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). But if the minority 𝔐K reading were original, it would be difficult to explain how the majority 𝔐K reading gained such wide acceptance. For the majority 𝔐K reading, the word αυτου following θηριου is not a possessive pronoun but an intensive pronoun. Thus 15:2 would read as follows: the image, the beast himself, and the number of his name.

15:2 τας 𝔐K-57 HF ¦ — 𝔐K-26 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the inclusion of τας.

Internal: The omission of τας is likely due to homeoteleuton, as the preceding word is εχοντας.

15:3 δουλου 𝔐K-31 ¦ του δουλου 𝔐K-6 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of του.

Internal: Scribes may have added του before δουλου to bring the phrase into alignment with the phrase του αρνιου later in the verse. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K. {Note: Hoskier's collation appears to be incorrect for this variant unit. Thus the manuscipt numbers are taken only from the ECM collation.}

15:4 δοξαση 𝔐K-41 HF RP ¦ δοξασει 𝔐K-42

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between δοξασει and δοξαση.

Internal: Itacism is common in Revelation and is generally not a deciding factor. In 8:3, 𝔐K leans more toward the subjunctive.

15:4 παντες 𝔐K-71 HF ¦ παντα τα εθνη 𝔐K-12 RP

External: 𝔐K supports παντες.

Internal: The minority 𝔐K reading may be an attempt to assimilate the text to 12:5, 14:8, 18:3, and 18:23, which all read παντα τα εθνη.

15:6 πληγας 𝔐K-72 HF ¦ εκ του ναου [before οι εχοντες] 𝔐K-8 ¦ πληγας εκ του ναου 𝔐K-2 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the exclusion of εκ του ναου.

Internal: The addition of εκ του ναου may be an assimilation to 14:17. Some scribes added εκ του ναου before οι εχοντες and others added it after πληγας. The desire on the part of scribes to make the location explicit is evidenced by the fact that 𝔐C includes the phrase εκ του ουρανου rather than εκ του ναου, which is a variation that still seeks to align with 14:17. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

(See also 16:1.)

15:8 εκ του καπνου 𝔐K-70 HF ¦ του καπνου 𝔐K-8 ¦ καπνου 𝔐K-1 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the inclusion of εκ του.

Internal: In the New Testament, the genetive of content is not generally preceded by a preposition or an article. Stylistically, the majority 𝔐K reading is a bit awkward, which might have prompted scribes to omit the words εκ του.

16:1 μεγαλης φωνης 𝔐K-56 ¦ 𝔐K-25 φωνης μεγαλης HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports μεγαλης φωνης.

Internal: Scribes may have been tempted to change the order to φωνης μεγαλης to bring the phrase into alignment with 11:12 and 21:3.

16:1 λεγουσης 𝔐K-80 ¦ εκ του ναου λεγουσης 𝔐K-1 HF RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of εκ του ναου.

Internal: This may be another assimilation to 14:17. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

(See also 15:6.)

16:3 ψυχη 𝔐K-78 HF ¦ ψυχη ζωσα 𝔐K-4 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports the omission of ζωσα.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes added ζωσα to bring the text into alignment with Genesis 1:24. Other scribes added ζωης to bring the text into alignment with Genesis 1:30. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

ος ην οσιος 𝔐K-35 ¦ ο ην ο οσιος 𝔐K-20 RP ¦ ο ην οσιος 𝔐K-18 HF ¦ ος ην ο οσιος 𝔐K-7

External: 𝔐K is significantly divided but leans toward ος ην οσιος.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes would change ος ην to ο ην to assimilate this text to 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:7, making it function as a title rather than a copulative verb. The addition of the article before οσιος would make it a clear substantivet to also function as a title.

16:8 τεταρτος 𝔐K-66 HF ¦ τεταρτος αγγελος 𝔐K-18 RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of αγγελος.

Internal: 𝔐A adds αγγελος for the second through seventh angels in chapter 16, which seems to be an attempt by scribes to bring uniformity to the list. 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K.

16:10 εμασωντο 𝔐K-46 HF RP ¦ εμασσωντο 𝔐K-32

External: 𝔐K leans toward εμασωντο.

Internal: There is no compelling internal evidence to support one spelling over the other.

16:12 αυτου την φιαλην 𝔐K-53 ¦ την φιαλην αυτου 𝔐K-27

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward αυτου την φιαλην.

Internal: It seems likely that scribes would have changed this text to read την φιαλην αυτου in order to assimilate it to the same phrase in verses 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 17. However, 𝔐K already demonstrates a lack of consistency in this text, explicitly writing the word αγγελος only in verse 3.

16:16 μαγεδων 𝔐K-73 HF ¦ αρμαγεδων 𝔐K-7 RP

External: 𝔐K strongly supports μαγεδων.

Internal: Because this is the only reference to this location in the New Testament, there is no compelling evidence to prefer one variant over the other. The argument could be made that the majority 𝔐K reading is assimilating to the Septuagint. However, the external evidence outweighs any such argument.

16:21 αυτη 𝔐K-37 HF ¦ αυτης 𝔐K-41 RP

External: 𝔐K is almost evenly divided between αυτης and αυτη.

Internal: If the original reading was ΑΥΤΗΣΦΟΔΡΑ, it would be easy for the scribe to read ΑΥΤΗΣ in the exemplar, write ΑΥΤΗΣ in his own manuscript, and then return to the exemplar and see ΣΦΟΔΡΑ, not realizing that he was duplicating Σ. This would result in dittography. If the original reading was ΑΥΤΗΣΣΦΟΔΡΑ, again it would be easy enough for the scribe to read ΑΥΤΗ in the exemplar and write ΑΥΤΗ in his own manuscript, but it would be harder for the scribe to then make sense out of ΣΣΦΟΔΡΑ. The scribe could assume that Σ was inadvertently written twice and omit it. However, the first explanation seems more straightforward, requring fewer assumptions. The reading αυτης could also be an attempt to assimilate to the genetive following τῆς πληγῆς earlier in the verse. Whatever the case may be, the internal evidence does not strongly favor one reading over the other.

πνευματι 𝔐K-62 ¦ εν πνευματι 𝔐K-23 HF RP

External: 𝔐K supports the omission of εν.

Internal: The argument could be made that εν was inadvertently omitted due to homeoteleuton, as the prior word is ερημον. However, it would be difficult for such an omission to be propogated in 73% of 𝔐K manuscripts. Rather, in light of the fact that 𝔐A tends to add text to 𝔐K, it seems that scribes have added εν to improve the style and that a minority of 𝔐K scribes adopted that addition.

17:3 θηριον το 𝔐K-51 HF ¦ θηριον 𝔐K-26 RP ¦ το θηριον το 𝔐K-8

External: 𝔐K leans heavily toward θηριον το

Internal: The majority 𝔐K reading is undoubtedly the more difficult reading. Although the beast with blasphemous names written on its head had been mentioned in 13:1, the fact that the beast was scarlet had not been mentioned. It seems that the author either forgot that he had not mentioned that detail previously or assumed that the color of the beast was common knowledge. It seems likely that scribes would omit το to account for the fact that a red beast had not yet been mentioned. Other scribes seemingly added το before θηριον to make the noun definite to match the definite substantival adjective.