2001 Translation

Book   Chapter : Verse

Chapters

Select a book first.

Verses

Select a chapter first.

Display Mode

Typeface

CamelCase names

e.g. DaniEl instead of Daniel. Learn more.

Text Subheadings

Illustrations

God’s Name Circumlocutions

Learn more.

Name of God’s Son

Differences in the Codex Sinaiticus of Revelation

Our translation of Revelation comes from what is probably the oldest surviving copy of Revelation, in the Codex Sinaiticus.

It contains some differences from the other Greek manuscripts of Revelation. Most are small and meaningless (e.g. spelling) and others are unlikely to be interesting to most readers.

However, those deeply invested in Revelation may, perhaps, find some of these differences large enough to effect how they might interpret the text.

Here are the differences we’ve noticed that are larger than silly spelling differences.

Index

Differences

Verse 1:6 — A ‘kingdom of priests’ vs ‘kingdom and priests’

It says, he ‘made us a kingdom and priests’, but other manuscripts don’t have the ‘and’, implying a ‘kingdom of priests’.

The word ‘and’ was added by a correcting scribe who was proofreading the document. This could suggest that losing the word ‘and’ was a common error, but this scribe happened to catch it, but other manuscripts did not. Alternatively, it was added here by some kind of misunderstading.

Verse 1:11 — Different order of congregations

It lists the congregations in 1:11 in a different order, different from that used later when the letters are dictated.

It suggests that either this manuscript got the order wrong, or later manuscripts may have reordered this list so both match up.

Verse 4:3 — ‘rainbow/halo’ vs ‘priests’

God’s throne in 4:3 is described as being surrounded by ‘priests’ who look like emerald, not a green ‘halo’ or ‘rainbow’ as most other manuscripts say. This could be a scribal error, but whose? Which is the original?

Verse 4:11 — An extra circumlocution for God’s Name

There’s an additional circumlocution for God’s Name in 4:11, which is not present in other manuscripts.

Verse 5:13 — Missing phrase: ‘under the ground’

In 5:13, the text is missing the phrase ‘under the ground’, suggesting it may be a later interpolation that’s present in most Bibles.

Verse 6:4 — Missing phrase: ‘peace from the earth’

In 6:4, the text is missing the phrase ‘peace from the earth’, suggesting it may be a later interpolation.

Verse 6:14 — ‘mountains and islands’ vs ‘mountain and hill’

In 6:14, every ‘mountain and hill’ is moved, whereas other manuscripts speak of ‘mountains and islands’.

Verse 7:4 — ‘144,000’ vs ‘140,000’

The Sinaiticus is quite different here from other manuscripts. It does not include the number ‘four’, making the number 140,000, not 144,000.

This appears to be a simple error, as later in the Sinaiticus, it does indeed say 144,000 in verse 14:1. So the missing ‘four’ here in 7:4 is likely a scribal error that was either missed by proofreaders, or deliberately left as-is because the error was in their source text.

We have added '[[four]]‘ as a [[manuscript insertion]] so readers are not puzzled by the missing number.

Verse 7:5-8 — Missing tribes, or a missing puzzle?

In the Sinaiticus, the passage does not list the tribes of Gad and SimeOn, listing just 10 tribes instead of 12.

At 12,000 each, this makes the numbers add up to only 120,000. In our translation, we have added in the tribes of Gad and SimeOn as [[manuscript insertions]] so readers aren’t too shocked (especially if doing a public reading).

However, even the version that appears in other manuscripts is still wrong! Other sources of Revelation still miss out both Dan and Ephraim, and add in the non-existent tribe of ‘Joseph’. Both versions also count Levi among the 12 tribes, which is not correct.

It would be obvious to any Jewish reader that the list is hopelessly wrong, no matter what manuscript you’re reading. Even a child would spot the errors. It’s so wrong, in fact, that it looks like a deliberate mistake, perhaps as some sort of puzzle or hidden message for the reader to work out.

Also, given the great care the Sinaiticus scribes took to correct even tiny errors, it seems likely that their original source(s) had these omissions, and they thought they should leave it as-is, considering the bizarre contents of Revelation. They may indeed have thought that the numbers were not supposed to add up, that it was meant to be some kind of numerical riddle with a hidden message or meaning.

So is this the original ‘puzzle’, or did other scribes ‘correct’ it somewhat in other versions? We don’t know.

Verse 11:3 — ‘1,260 days’ vs ‘1,265 days’

In 11:3, the text says ‘1,265 days’ (see our note on 1,265 days), whereas other manuscripts say ‘1,260 days’.

It was added by a correcting scribe, suggesting that more reliable documents may have said 1,265 days. This difference may break the connection most people make to the 3-1/2 times.

Verse 11:8a — ‘and near the river’

In 11:8, most manuscripts just say that the corpses of the two witnesses lie on the street of a city that’s spiritually called ‘Sodom’ and ‘Egypt’. But the Sinaiticus adds one in between:

‘and near the river’.

It’s not clear which ‘river’ is meant; the only major rivers mentioned in the Bible are:

  • The Jordan
  • The Nile
  • The Euphrates

Well:

  • Sodom was (probably) near the Jordan (it was certainly in the Jordan Valley).
  • Egypt has the Nile.
  • And of course, the Euphrates is the river that runs through Babylon.

So maybe, through elimination, the reference to a river is to the Euphrates and Babylon.

So it looks like the text may be saying the place ‘where their Lord was executed on a stake’, that is, JeruSalem, is spiritually called ‘Sodom’, ‘Babylon’, and ‘Egypt’. These three are all known for their spiritual wickedness.

What’s interesting about this is that it was added by a correcting scribe, who was proofreading the document and making many corrections to spelling and grammar that we would certainly agree with today. This suggests that they may have been working from older copies which contained this phrase, and it was already disappearing from most newer copies of Revelation. Either that, or it was added for some unknown reason.

We don’t know.

If this is a mention of the Euphrates, then it would be an additional one, because it appears at 16:12 as the river that dries up.

Verse 11:8b — ‘the Lord himself’ vs ‘their Lord’

Most manuscripts say where ‘their Lord’ was impaled, but the Sinaiticus says it’s where ‘the Lord himself’ was impaled, doubly confirming that this means Jesus and JeruSalem.

Verse 12:13 — Who is ‘he’?

Most manuscripts are worded to say this:

‘when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he drove out the woman…’.

However, something interesting happened in the Sinaiticus. At first, it said exactly the same thing, but then our proofreader came and changed the word order slightly, to this:

‘when he saw that thrown down was the dragon to the earth, he drove out the woman…’.

This creates an ambiguity, as it could mean either:

  • The dragon saw himself thrown down, and then he (the ‘dragon’) drove out the woman.
  • Someone else (‘he’) saw that the dragon was thrown down, so then he (whoever that is) drove out the woman.

This is a very interesting difference, and it’s not clear why it was changed. However, it suggests that the proofreader believed that the previous scribe had either clarified a previously ambiguous statement, or had used a source text that had altered the wording to clarify it.

If this proofreader had been working from a much older source text, it may suggest this was a common ‘clarification’ that had been creeping into copies of the text. Our proofreader friend may have been trying to bring the text back to its original, ambiguous, form. But we really don’t know.

The ambiguity opens up the possibility that it was not the ‘dragon’ who expelled the woman, but somebody else who did it for her own safety and protection, so she would avoid being persecuted by the dragon.

Verse 12:18 — ‘he stood’ vs ‘I stood’

Most Bibles have the narrator say that ‘I stood on the seashore’, but the Sinaiticus says ‘he stood on the seashore’, referring to the dragon.

The difference is one letter, the last one:

  • ΕΣΤΑΘΗΝ (estasthen) = I stood
  • ΕΣΤΑΘΗ (estasthe) = he/she/it stood

This is a very easy thing to confuse, because scribes frequently missed off the last letter, Ν, to save paper space, as that letter wasn’t always needed. However, they were supposed to add an overline above the previous letter, Η, to indicate that Ν had been left out. It was a kind of shorthand, and was used for thousands of words.

However, it’s possible that upon copying the text, someone misread it, either not noticing the overline, or imagining that an overline was there (since it was such a common thing).

So which is correct? ‘I stood’, or ‘he stood’?

The case for ‘he stood’

It could be ‘he stood’, because the Sinaiticus is perhaps our oldest copy, and we can see that scribes and proofreaders took great care to correct the text when they spotted errors, even minor mispellings.

However, this doesn’t mean it’s infallable; we know it contains some errors, and this could be one of them.

The case for ‘I stood’

The context strongly suggests it should be ‘I stood’. The text has just told us that the dragon ‘went off to wage war’, so why would it now tell us that it’s just standing on the seashore? I thought it went off to wage war? So which is it, standing here, or going off to wage war? It can’t both be here and having went off!

If it’s the narrator (I stood) who’s standing on the seashore, then this too fits the context afterwards, as the next verse (13:1) has the narrator describe what he sees coming out of the sea.

So the context fully agrees with ‘I stood’, whereas ‘he stood’ fully contradicts the verse before.

Although, we could say that trying to make Revelation logical and coherent is foolish. Perhaps it’s meant to be self-contradictory!

Our conclusion

We conclude that the Sinaiticus either has a simple scribal error here, or they are staying faithful to their source text which had the error, but ‘I stood’ is likely correct:

  • The context before and after agrees best with ‘I stood’, whereas ‘he stood’ adds a contradiction.
  • It’s an easy scribal error to happen, on a letter that people commonly missed off to save space. Missing it off gives us ‘he stood’.

The Sinaiticus is not infallable, and we know it contains some errors. This is likely one of them.

Verse 13:5 — ‘to act’ vs ‘to do whatever he wants’

Most other manuscripts say the wild animal (or beast) was given authority ‘to act’, but the Sinaiticus is more verbose, saying ‘to do whatever he wants’ or ‘to do what he wants’.

Verse 13:10 — ‘if anyone goes into captivity…’

Most manuscripts say something like this:

‘If anyone goes into captivity, they must go into captivity…’

However, the Sinaiticus does not say that last part. The phrase ‘if anyone is captured’ is immediately followed by ‘if anyone kills with the sword’.

This is either because it is implied, or it’s a deliberate omission which changes the meaning quite dramatically.

If it’s meant to have a different meaning, it could be read as less a statement about the inevitability of what will happen, but instead a warning that if you’re captured and you retaliate by killing someone, you’ll be killed yourself. Although, if that were the case, then the grammar would be make it a totally bizarre way of phrasing it.

However, the simpler explanation is that it’s either a mistake, or that this is such a common literary device that the reader is supposed to recognize the pattern, and to mentally fill-in the missing phrase.

If that’s the case, then it perhaps shows that later copies of Revelation have been edited to make it clearer.

Verse 13:16 — ‘will make’ vs ‘makes’

Most manuscripts say that the ‘Two-Horned Wild Beast’ then ‘makes’, ‘causes’, or ‘compels’ people to receive a branding on their right hands or foreheads. This is the present tense, talking about what is done now at this point in the account. The word is ποιει (poiei).

However, the tense in the Sinaiticus was corrected by a scribe to read ‘will make’, which is a future tense, referring to a future time in the account. The word is ποιηϲει (poiesei)

The fact that this is a correction suggests that older, now lost texts, may have had this future tense, and the scribe was trying to bring it back to its original form.

Believers in Revelation may find this change affects how they interpret the text.

Verse 14:9 — ‘made them drink’ vs ‘they have fallen’?

Other source manuscripts say that Great Babylon made them (the nations) drink her wine.

However, this is not explicitly stated in the Sinaiticus, it’s just implied. Instead, it says that the wine is what made the nations fall too, alongside her. The difference is subtle, but it’s there, and it seems likely to have been caused by a scribal error — but whose error?

Look how similar the words are:

  • ΠΕΠΟΤΙΚΕΝ (pepotiken) = made them drink
  • ΠΕΠΤΩΚΑΝ (petokan) = they have fallen

Considering the great age of the Sinaiticus, and the fact that its proofreaders did not catch this, leads us to wonder which is the original? We don’t know, as both work in the context. In fact, what it says here in the Sinaiticus agrees with verse 18:3 later on in the same manuscript, when it again says that the nations ‘have fallen’ from her wine.

For believers in Revelation who are trying to interpret it, it may be quite an important point, because the Sinaiticus version suggests that the nations (literally: ethnic groups) have also ‘fallen’ in some manner at the same time as ‘Great Babylon’ — whether that is physically, spiritually, morally, or whatever.

Verse 15:2 — ‘harps of The God’ vs ‘harps of Lord The God’

Most manuscripts say that the angels are holding ‘harps of The God’, but the Sinaiticus says ‘harps of Lord the God’.

Since ‘Lord’ appears here without the usual ‘the’ beforehand, this is probably a circumlocution for YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh), which was a common practice at the time. Also, ‘Lord The God’ was the Septuagint way of translating the Hebrew expression ‘Jehovah God’.

Therefore, in accordance with our rules on circumlocutions, we translate it as ‘[Jehovah] The God’.

Verse 16:3 — ‘things in the sea’ vs ‘sailing upon the sea’

When the second messenger pours out the bowl of God’s rage, the sea becomes like blood. Then most manuscripts say that everything ‘in the sea’ died, but the Sinaiticus says that the people who are ‘upon’ the sea died.

While it may make more sense that things ‘in’ the sea would die if the water becomes like blood, it would actually be inconsistent with the rest of the bowls. All the others attack the people, so why would it suddently attack sea creatures?

The Sinaiticus is more consistent:

  • Bowl one: People get a boil (16:2)
  • Bowl two: People sailing on the sea die (16:3)
  • Bowl three: People given blood to drink (16:6)
  • Bowl four: People scorched by the sun (16:11)
  • Bowl five: People biting their tongues (16:10)
  • Bowl six: People assembled in battle (16:12)
  • Bowl seven: People pounded by hailstones (16:17)

So yes, it’s more consistent if the Sinaiticus is correct, and it paints a picture of people being affected no matter where they are.

On the other hand, ‘in the sea’ may make sense if you view it as an attack on food sources. The fish die with bowl two, the crops and land animals die from the rivers and springs turning to blood in bowl three, or perhaps from the scorching heat in bowl four, or even the hailstones in bowl seven. So in that view, ‘in the sea’ makes sense.

Of course, there is no reason to assume that Revelation should be consistent or that it should make sense, so we don’t really know which is correct. Either could work. We just go by the Sinaiticus wording here because that’s our main source text, and to bring the matter to your attention.

Verse 17:4 — ‘and of the earth’

The Sinaiticus adds the phrase ‘and of the earth’ when describing what’s inside the woman’s cup. This is not present in other manuscripts. Either it was accidentally added to this version, or it was lost in other copies. We don’t know, but we include it here to bring the matter to your attention.

It’s possibly a interpolation, a preacher’s note which was some effort to make this verse agree with the next verse, which mentions ‘earth’s disgusting things’. Again, though, who knows?

Verse 17:8 — ‘is present’ vs ‘will be present’

Other manuscripts say the wild animal was, is not, and ‘will be’ present (future tense). The Sinaiticus says it was, is not, and ‘is present’ (present tense), probably meaning ‘is present again’. Indeed, the manuscript used to say ‘again’ until it was removed by a proofreader.

This is probably more a case of the passage being very confusing and complex, and some scribes or proofreaders have, at some point along the centuries, tried to clear it up. Which is the original? We don’t know.

Verse 17:17 — ‘his’ vs ‘their’

Most manuscripts say that God puts it into their hearts (meaning ‘their minds’) to carry out ‘his’ purpose (meaning God’s purpose). However, the Sinaiticus says that God puts it into their hearts to carry out ‘their’ purpose (meaning the kings’ purpose).

However, since God is the one putting it there, then the meaning may be identical anyway; it may be implying that because God put it there, it became their purpose too.

Keep in mind that the same word translated as ‘judgment’ can also be ‘purpose’ or ‘decision’ or even ‘idea’, ‘mind’, or ‘will’.

Verse 18:3 — ‘have fallen’ vs ‘have drunk’

Similar to verse 14:9, the Sinaiticus says that the nations ‘have fallen’ from drinking the wine, but other manuscripts say that they ‘have drunk’ the wine.

Again, the difference is small:

  • ΠΕΠΩΚΑΝ (pepokan) = they have drunk
  • ΠΕΠΤΩΚΑΣΙΝ (peptokasin) = they have fallen

So this difference is at least consistent with the rest of the manuscript.

Verses 18:12-13 — list of valuable things

The Sinaiticus has a slightly different list of valuable things that ‘Babylon’ will no longer be around to buy. It is missing marble and amomum.

Now, normally we may just assume that the manuscript lost these two items in copying, but that’s definitely not what happened, because ‘amomum’ was actually in the manuscript, but was crossed-out by a proofreader.

So this suggests (yet again!) that the Sinaiticus keepers had access to older versions of Revelation, and were trying to preserve these older texts, perhaps by removing later interpolations. In other words, it could support the idea that the Sinaiticus really is a more authentic version of Revelation. However, it’s hard to prove this.

Verse 19:12 — ‘names’ vs ‘name’

Most other manuscripts say that the figure on the white horse has a single name written on him, but the Sinaiticus says that he has several ‘names’ (plural) written on him, and the grammar suggests that these multiple names are written on the many royal headbands he wears, not on him himself.

The Sinaiticus version makes the most sense, because the next verse tells us his name is ‘God’s Word’. If the other manuscripts were correct, then it would be a contradiction to say he has a name that nobody knows except him, and then to immediately tell us it… And not only to tell us it, but to reveal it’s literally the second-most common name for Jesus!

This suggests that the Sinaiticus is correct here, and the other manuscripts have suffered from a corruption. On the other hand, maybe Revelation isn’t meant to make sense.

Verse 21:6 — Missing phrase: ‘It has been accomplished!’

Most manuscripts have the one on the throne (God) exclaim:

‘It has been accomplished!’

However, a proofreading scribe removed these words from the Sinaiticus. Why? Well, if they’d been applying corrections from older manuscripts, then it may be an addition that had begun to creep into some copies, and the proofreader was attempting to bring the text back to its original form. But we don’t know.

It’s important to point this out, because some use these words as a ‘signpost’ to interpret when certain events have happened or will stop happening. The fact that an ancient proofreader (who had made many other corrections we would agree with) has removed the words, throws their authenticity into doubt.

Verse 21:27 — ‘of the heaven’ vs ‘of the lamb’

Most manuscripts say that the Scroll of Life is in the lamb’s, but here, the Sinaiticus says that it’s belongs to the heavens.

The words can look superficially similar:

  • ΟΥΝΟΥ = an abbreviated form of ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ
  • ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ = ‘of the heaven’
  • ἈΡΝΙΟΥ = ‘of the lamb’

So perhaps there is a scribal error here, but whose? It’s likely to be the Sinaiticus that’s in error here, because back in 13:8 even the Sinaiticus calls it the lamb’s scroll.

However, there’s no reason why the text may have originally also called it heaven’s scroll, and someone tried to align the two verses.

You see, such attempts are quite common. Many medieval changes and additions to the New Testament (which have been fixed) are half-baked attempts to make different parts of the text exactly match up with each other to absurd and unnecessary degrees (you see this a lot in the gospels).

If it weren’t for that strong tradition, we would have normally just assumed that the Sinaiticus was in error here, but with that knowledge, we can’t be so sure.

Whatever the case, it makes little difference to the meaning of the text.

Verse 22:2 — Missing phrase: ‘Tree of Life’

The Sinaiticus says that the river banks are producing 12 fruits, yielding its fruit during each month. This makes perfect sense and is grammatically correct.

However, most other manuscripts insert the phrase ‘Tree of Life’ here, right in the middle of the sentence, with little grammatical finesse, leading us to suspect that it may be a later interpolation.

The ‘Tree of Life’ is mentioned elsewhere in Revelation, even in the Sinaiticus, such as in 2:7, 22:14, and 22:19.

Verse 22:7 — ‘he is coming’ vs ‘I am coming’

Most manuscripts suddenly switch to, apparently, Jesus speaking, where he says, ‘I am coming’, but the Sinaiticus does not appear to switch speakers, with the messenger who’s speaking with ‘John’ continuing on, saying (in reference to Jesus), ‘he is coming’.

So the Sinaiticus is consistent with the rest of the text; however, this is due to a scribal correction. Originally, it also said ‘I am coming’. Was the correction due to them referening an earlier, more accurate source text, or was the ‘correction’ merely some guy’s interpretation of how the text should read?

We don’t know.

Verses 22:20-21 — Ending words

The ending words are slightly different, although it’s rather meaningless. Here are the differences highlighted in bold:

The Tischendorf NT says:

The one testifying these things says:

‘Yes, I’m coming quickly!’

Amen, come, Lord Jesus!

May the grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.

The Codex Sinaiticus says:

The one testifying these things says:

‘Yes, I’m coming quickly!’

Come, Lord Jesus, the Anointed One!

May the grace of the Lord Jesus be with the holy ones.

Amen!

As you can see, the differences are minor and not significant, but it’s interesting that they exist at all. It suggests that some ancient copies of Revelation were more paraphrased than others. The Sinaiticus is more consistent with other Bible books.