The Last Six Verses of Revelation

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 10:00, 13 March 2022

Erasmus’ first edition of the printed Greek and Latin New Testament dig-lot called the Novum Instrumentum (New Instrument) has been the subject of a vicious and unwarranted attack by textual critics. One of the accusations against Erasmus is that he possessed only one Greek manuscript of Revelation when he compiled the text of Revelation which had the final six verses missing, and so he back-translated the Latin into Greek for the 1516 edition.

Anecdotes

Those who study Erasmus will be aware of the plethora of anecdotal stories that surround him. Some of these include:

Erasmus was pressed for time and so rushed through the text of Revelation

Erasmus did not have a single manuscript with the complete book of Revelation

Erasmus produced a Greek text of the last six verses based on the Latin Vulgate

The Latin was more important to Erasmus than the Greek

Erasmus lost a bet and had to include the Johannine Comma into his text

Erasmus had a low view of the book of Revelation

Erasmus' Sources

Minuscule 2814

Reuchlin's Codex, Minuscule 2814 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), Aν20 (Soden), formerly it was labelled as 1rK in all catalogs, but it was renumbered as a 2814 by Aland, is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, dated palaeographically to the 12th century. The codex contains the Book of Revelation with a commentary of Andreas from Caesarea. The last six verses are lost (22:16-21). The text is written on a parchment in minuscule, in 1 column per page, 20 lines per page.

The commentary was of importance to Erasmus because it was ascribed to Hippolytus c. 200 A. D.. This would reflect the pre-Nicene era and link back to the early church writers, with Hippolytus being the disciple of Irenaeus, Irenaeus of Polycarp and Polycarp of John, although it had been amended by Andreas and Arethas in much later times.

The Extraction of the Biblical Text

Erasmus extracted the Greek biblical text of Revelation out of the Greek commentary:

Ex eo contextus verba describenda curauimus (ASD IX-4)

Translated by Erika Rummel as:

“From it I had the words of the text copied out” (CWE 72)

Most scholars say he used another scholar to do this work. Erika Rummel for example stated that: “Since the text was imbedded in the commentary and difficult to read, Erasmus had a clean copy made, returning the original to its owner. The unknown copyist introduced a number of mistakes that made their way also into the printed text.” In a footnote she said that: “Bludau¹⁶ suggests that it was the poet laureate Henricus Glareanus, who was in Basel at that time and whose scholarly abilities Erasmus appreciated.”

Andrew Brown says in his ASD IX-4;

“Because of the promise that the manuscript would be returned to Reuchlin unharmed (incontaminatus), Erasmus instructed an assistant to copy the scripture citations by hand, so as to form a separate continuous text, which the type setters would be able to follow more easily: “ex eo contextus verba describenda curauimus” (“from that [manuscript], we arranged for the words of the [scripture] text to be copied out”).” - ASD VI-4

Jan Krans says

Minuscule 2049 (Hoskiers’ 141)

Revelation 22.16-18 in Minuscule 2049.

Revelation 22.18-21 in Minuscule 2049.

Minuscule 2049, numbered by Hoskier as 141, is from the sixteenth century, and regarded as a copy (Abschrift) of a printed edition, probably Erasmus’ fourth (1527). ^{Erasmus and the Text of Revelation 22:19, p. 10 Jan Krans.}

Valla

Valla's annotations at Revelation 22

Erasmus consulted notes such as the annotations of Laurentius Valla.

Desiderius Erasmus's 1516 annotations

Erasmus also examined the Lauretianus Codex in Revelation 8:13 which was Laurentius Vallas manuscript with annotations.

Erasmus Annotations

Desiderius Erasmus's 1516 annotations

James White claims: “Erasmus used only one manuscript for Revelation”, but Erasmus said in Revelation 1:6

“sic enim est in graecis exemplaribus...”

Translated as

“It is in the Greek copies (plural)...”

Here are Erasmus's own words, from his Annotationes, page 675 (625) (Full title: In Novum Testamentum annotationes, ab ipso autore iam quartum recognitae, & ex Graecis codicibus quos postea nactus est auctario neutiquam poenitendo locupletatae):

Quamquam in calce huius libri nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus; [B]ea tamen ex latinis adiecimus.

In English:

However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin.

Aldine

Most scholars conclude that Erasmus didn’t know the Aldine edition followed his own and thus he simply copied in what he had back translated from the Latin in his 1516. It is a strange and bizarre concept but it is almost unquestioned in many circles:

"Erasmus' misunderstanding of the nature of the Aldine text could also have led him to imagine that the Aldine provided independent verification of the correctness of his retranslations from the Latin Vulgate into Greek, at passages where the Aldine simply copied Erasmus' text. This may help to explain why his retranslation of several verses at the end of the Apocalypse was only partly revised in later editions, as the Aldine Bible gave the appearance of supporting his printed text. The same conclusions may also explain why the other retranslated passages in the Apocalypse were left almost unchanged." (Andrew Brown, ASD VI-4, pg. 12).

Timelines

The first quotation by Erasmus

1516

Erasmus' Annotationes of 1516 at Revelation 22. Quamquam in calce huius libri nonnulla ver ba reperi apud nostros quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus; ea tamen ex latinis adiecimus.

Erasmus' Annotationes of 1519 at Revelation 22. (omitted)

Erasmus' Annotationes of 1522 at Revelation 22. (omitted)

Erasmus' Annotationes of 1527 at Revelation 22. (omitted)

Erasmus' Annotationes of 1535 at Revelation 22. (omitted)

Quamquam in calce huius libri nonnulla ver ba reperi apud nostros quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus; ea tamen ex latinis adiecimus.

Translated as:

However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin.

Annotationes 1516, p. 625 (Mistakenly printed in most copies as 675)

1519

(Omit)

1522

(Omit)

1527

(Omit)

1535

(Omit)

So as we can see, Erasmus only quoted the words in the 1516 edition and no other. It seems clear that when Erasmus says: "However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin," that he is speaking about how the Greek was lacking in the Reuchlin Codex, and he filled it in from the Latin in his copy of that codex.

Answer to Edward Lee’s Annotations

non his contentus, impingit mihi flagitium impium, idque ante tempus, videlicet frequenter infulciens, si quid habet odiosius, quod in fine Apocalypsis, paucula verba adiecerim Graeco codici ex nostris Latinis.

Translated as:

“Not content with that, he [Lee] accused me of an impious crime.... that in the end of the Book of Revelation I added a small number of words in a Greek codex from our Latin copies”

Historically, Erasmus had stood against back translating and was disgusted to have been accused of it in his text.

^{Source: Opera, ix, 1706, col. 150}

Erasmus' Responsio to Lee

Erasmus replied to Lee in 1520, Responsio ad annotationes Eduardi Lei (“Answer to Edward Lee’s Annotations”), page 278:

Dubium non erat quin essent omissa, et er – ant perpauca. Proinde nos, ne hiaret lacuna, ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca. Quod ipsum tamen noluimus latere lectorem, fassi in annotationibus quid a nobis esset factum ut, si quid dissiderent verba nostra ab his quae posuisset autor huius operis, lector nactus exemplar restitueret. … Et tamen hoc ipsum non eramus ausuri in Euangeliis, quod hic fecimus, ac ne in epistolis quidem apostolicis. Huius libri sermo simplicissimus est, et argumentum fere historicum, ne quid dicam, de autore olim incerto. Postremo locus hic coronis tantum est operis.

There was no doubt that the words had been omitted, and they were only a few. To avoid leaving a lacuna in my text, I supplied the Greek out of our Latin version. I did not want to conceal this from the reader, however, and admitted in the annotations what I had done. My thought was that the reader, if he had access to a manuscript, could correct anything in our words that differed from those put by the author of this work. … And yet I would not have dared to do in the Gospels or even in the apostolic Epistles what I have done here. The language of this book is very simple, and the content has mostly a historical sense, not to mention that the authorship was once uncertain. Finally, this passage is merely the conclusion of the work.

Source: Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei, ASD IX-4, p. 278 ll. 35-39 and 39-43; cf. p. 120 ll. 303-304. (1520) Translated by Erika Rummel

This section is actually dealing with one verse. Note: "There was no doubt that the words had been omitted, and they were only a few." 135 words of the last six verses are not "only a few".

But I have a very good justification. I did not have the manuscript in the first edition; in the second edition I had the help of the Aldine edition. Therefore I fulfilled the promise I had made in the first edition. (CWE 72, pg. 45) - Note: The Latin of this has yet to be examined by me.

Erasmus's own words, from his Apologia qua respondet duabis inuectiuis Eduardi Lei (“Defense which responds to Edward Lee’s two invectives”), pages 54-55:

In calce Apocalypsis in exemplari quod tum nobis (erat unicum, nam is liber apud Graecos rarus est inventu), deerat unus atque alter versus. Eos nos addidimus, secuti Latinos codices. Et erant eiusmodi ut ex his quae praecesserant possent reponi. Cυm igitur Basileam mitterem recognitum exemplar, scripsi amicis ut ex aeditione Aldina restituerunt eum locum. Nam mihi nondum emptum erat hoc opus. Id ita, ut iussi, factum est. Queso, quid hic debetur Leo? An ipse quod deerat restituit? Atqui nullum habebat exemplar nisi meum. Sed admonuit. Quasi vero non hoc testatus sim in prioribus annotationibus, quid illic egissem et quid desyderarem.

In English:

At the end of the Apocalypse, the manuscript I used (I had only one, for the book is rarely found in Greek) was lacking one or two lines. I added them, following the Latin codices. They were of the kind that could be restored out of the preceding text. Thus, when I sent the revised copy to Basel, I wrote to my friends to restore the place out of the Aldine edition; for I had not yet bought that work. They did as I instructed them. What, I ask you, do I owe to Lee in this case? Did he himself restore what was missing? But he had no text except mine. Ah, but he warned me! As if I had not stated in the annotations of the first edition what I had done and what was missing.

Erasmus’ words are as follows, first in Latin, then in translation (Wetstein, Prolegomena in Novum Testamentum, 1764, p. 331f., citing Erasmus “contra Leum §. 243” = Opera, ix, 1706, AD CCXLIII, col. 246):

“Quoniam Graecis nunquam magnopere placuit liber Apocalypseos, rarus habetur apud illos. Itaque quum cuperemus nihil abesse nostrae Editione, aegre extorsimus ab Inclyto viro Ioanne Capnione vestustissimum Codicem, Commentarium habentem in hoc opus. Ex eo contextus verba describenda curavimus. In calce vero scribarum incuria deerant haec: Et si quis diminuerit de verbis libri Prophetiae huius, auferet Deus partem eius de libro Vitae et de Civitate sancta, et de his, quae scripta sunt in isto libro. Sensimus autem scribam per eam occasionem errasse, quod quum bis ponatur in isto libro, ille ad posterius oculos deflexerit, relictis quae sunt in medio. Siquidem ad nullum lapidem frequentius impingunt librarii. Dubium non erat, quin essent omissa, et erant perpauca. Proinde nos, ne hiaret lacuna, ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca, Quod ipsum tamen non noluimus latere lectorem, fassi in Annotationibus, quid a nobis esset factum, vt si quid dissiderent verba nostra ab his, quae posuisset autor huius operis, lector nactus exemplar restituerit.”

“Because the Book of Revelation never particularly suited the Greeks, it is rarely found among them. And so, since we were desirous that our Edition should be remiss in no respect, with considerable effort we extorted out of that Illustrious man John Capnio a very ancient codex, which contained a Commentary to this work. From that we could ensure the words that belong together were correctly transcribed. But at the end the following words were missing by a scribal error: ‘And if anyone shall take away from the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall take his part out of the book of Life and from the Holy City, and from those things which are written in this book.’ But our impression was that a scribe had made a mistake in that instance, since, as the words ‘in this book’ occur twice, his eyes passed involuntarily over to the latter occurrence, thus omitting the phrases in between. And indeed, book-writers make no mistake more frequently than this. There was no doubt these words had been omitted by error, and that their number was small. Therefore, to avoid a gap in the text, we made good the Greek from our Latin copies. But since we did not want this to escape the notice of the reader, we made mention of what we had done in the annotations, so that if our words differed in any way from those which the author of this work originally set down here, the reader once having procured a copy would be able to restore the original.”

Erasmus’ Apologia addressed to Stunica:

In Apocalypsi non suppetebat nobis nisi vnicum exemplar, sed vetustissimum, quod nobis exhibuit eximius ille litterarum heros Ioh. Reuchlinus.

For the Book of Revelation only [non … nisi] one copy was immediately available to us (or, served our purpose), but that was a very ancient one, which John Reuchlin, that illustrious hero of the literary sciences provided for our perusal.

^{Source: Bengelius, Apparatus Criticus ad Novum Testamentum, 2nd ed., Burkius, 1763, p. 495}

Commentaries and Articles

Bengel

Bengel questioned many things concerning Erasmus’ readings in the Book of Revelation, such as where Erasmus got his final readings if Reuchlin’s codex was defective, and why did Erasmus’ first edition differ from his latter editions? Did he conjecture? Did he use the Complutensian Polyglot? Without having the Reuchlin manuscript, he also speculated that Erasmus used marginal glosses. This was later disproven when Delitzsch rediscovered the Reuchlin manuscript and printed his findings in 1861. Bengel also insisted that Erasmus had back-translated from the Latin into Greek for the last six verses. Bengel, who claimed Jesus would return on the 18th of June 1836, used these concepts to create his own teaching in Revelation for his own personal eschatological leanings. Bengel started a trend of downplaying how many manuscripts Erasmus had for his Greek text.

Franz Delitzsch

Franz Delitzsch.

In 1861, German Lutheran theologian and Hebraist Franz Delitzsch wote a book about the discovery of Erasmus' manuscript which he had used for the Book of revelation. [1]

Tregelles

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles

“For the Apocalypse he had but one mutilated MS., borrowed from Reuchlin, in which the text and commentary were intermixed almost unintelligibly. And thus he used here and there the Latin Vulgate for his guide, retranslating into Greek as well as he could. This was the case with regard to the last six verses, which from the mutilated condition of his MS. were wholly wanting.....In other places, also, he used the Latin Vulgate to supply what he supposed to be deficient in his MSS., in the same manner in which the Complutensian editors had done, only with greater frequency...” [2]

^{Source: An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, London, 1854, p. 21}

Page 1 of Tregelles in Handschriftlich	Page 2 of Tregelles in Handschriftlich	Page 3 of Tregelles in Handschriftlich	Page 4 of Tregelles in Handschriftlich
Page 5 of Tregelles in Handschriftlich	Page 6 of Tregelles in Handschriftlich	Page 7 of Tregelles in Handschriftlich	Page 8 of Tregelles in Handschriftlich

Scrivener

Scrivener said in A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament concerning Erasmus that he may have used other Greek manuscripts for Revelation:

As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six verses, Erasmus turned these into Greek from the Latin; and some portions of his self-made version, which are found (however some editors may speak vaguely) in no one known Greek manuscript whatever, still cleave to our received text ^. Besides this scanty roll, however, he not rarely refers in his Annotations to other manuscripts he had seen in the course of his travels (e. g. on Heb. i. 3 ; Apoc. i. 4 ; viii. 13), yet too indistinctly for his allusions to be of much use to critics. Some such readings, as alleged by him, have not been found elsewhere (e. g. Acts xxiv. 23 ; Rom. xii. 20), and may have been cited loosely from distant recollection (comp. Col. iii. 3 ; Heb. iv. 13 ; 3 Pet. iii. 1 ; Apoc. ii. 18). A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical students by Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose, 1813-1891; Miller, Edward, 1825-1901

Hoskier

Hoskier in Apocalypse 2, p. 637.

Hoskier in Apocalypse

At verse 16, Hoiskier has a note:

‘Ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus’ scripsit Erasmus

translated as:

However, we added those words from the Latin "Erasmus wrote"

Revelation 22:19 in Hoskier's Concerning the text of the Apokalypse

Herman Hoskier listed 3 minuscules with "book of life":

1) 57 (296) 16th century;

2) 119 (1075) 14th century; and

3) 141 (2049) 16th century

(Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse. 2 vols. - London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929). Although 2 of the 4 known Greek witnesses could have been back translated from a printed Textus Receptus, at least 2 of them pre-date the Textus Receptus.

Delitzsch' studies on the subject of this Reuchlin codex in Heft 1 and his investigations of the Erasmian texts are worthy of all praise. He is hard enough on Erasmus, but he fairly "roasts" Tischendorf for his carelessness in assuming other Greek witnesses for some of Erasmus and the Reuchlin readings. This must be strictly borne in mind if using the notes to the Apoc. in Tischendorf s critical editions. Far less well did he (Delitzsch) conduct his investigations of the Complutensiau text. And Tischendorf s notes in ed. viii. are accurate enough for all general purposes. (Page 74)

Apoc. 46 is really nearer the textus receptus than Apoc. 1 itself, and we have no doubt now of the true ending of Apoc. 1, which is wanting from xxii. 16 8a8 to the end. If Erasmus used Apoc. 1 as a model, then surely Aldus and Stephen must have had access to Apoc. 46 or a sister-MS. (Page 195)

Metzger

Edward F. Hills

Edward Hills wrote:

“[Rev 22:19] is one of the verses which Erasmus is said to have translated from Latin into Greek. But Hoskier seems to doubt that Erasmus did this, suggesting that he may have followed Codex 141” and “The last six verses of Codex 1r (Rev. 22:16-21) were lacking, and its text in other places was sometimes hard to distinguish from the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in which it was embedded. According to almost all scholars, Erasmus endeavoured to supply these deficiencies in his manuscript by retranslating the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Hoskier, however, was inclined to dispute this on the evidence of manuscript 141”. ^{(The King James Version Defended, p. 202, referring to Hoskier, Apocalypse 1, pp. 474-77)}

Doug Kutilek

One of these is the reading "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as in the textus receptus. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a "unique" Greek reading into his text. (5) Since the first and only "source" for this reading in Greek is the printed text of Erasmus, any Greek New Testament that agrees with Erasmus here must have been simply copied from his text. The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read "tree of life." Numerous other unique or extremely rare readings in the textus receptus editions could be referenced. ^{(Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? By Douglas Kutilek 5/24/96)}

Thomas Holland

Thomas Holland wrote an article entitled Revelation 22:19 -"book of life" and the last six verses of Revelation 22 in defense of the KJV and TR. This was responded to by Jan Krans in Erasmus and the Text of Revelation 22:19 A Critique of Thomas Holland’s Crowned With Glory

Jack Moorman

In 2005, Jack Moorman wrote:

Erasmus’ manuscript of Revelation is said to have been lacking in the last six verses (22:16-21), and was supplied by referring to the Latin Vulgate. Herman Hoskier in his massive, and I must add, difficult to use, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, has shown that Erasmus may have had Greek manuscript 2049 (Hoskiers’s 141) covering these verses (I 474-77; II 454, 635). But whatever the case, Dr. Wallace should have told the rest of the story; that is, if indeed Erasmus used the Vulgate, in his later editions it was corrected by direct reference to the Greek.

One notable exception is claimed to be 22:19 where the AV/TR reads: …shall take away his part out of the book of life. This has fairly substantial support in other sources, but is found in only three Greek manuscripts (296 2049 2067mg.). The variant reading, though supported by the Greek, can hardly be said to make sense: …shall take away his part out of the tree of life. In When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text, and using Hoskier, I have listed support from the manuscripts, versions, and fathers for eight passages in Revelation 22:15-21.^{A Reply to Dr. Daniel Wallace’s Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today Twenty Points of Criticism Answered Jack Moorman, October 5, 2005}

Also:

Dr Moorman makes this observation on page 114:

“Each person has his own individual “part in the book of life”. But what are we to make of a man’s “part in the tree of life”? The revised reading lessens the impact of this last warning in the Bible. Also a parallel is intended “…this book…the book of life.”” ^{(When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text – A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorised Version B.F.T. #1617 by Jack. A. Moorman, The Bible for Today, 1988)}

Gail Riplinger

Gail Riplinger commented on this verse in her book In Awe of Thy Word, page 981:

William Combs pretends that the last six verses of Revelation” contain “errors in the KJV. He blindly claims, They have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever (William Combs, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, Spring 1996, p. 47). The KJVs book of life is in Greek Manuscripts 051, 296, 2049, 2067 mg, as well as in the ancient Coptic and Arabic Bibles.

Herman Hoskier, the pre-eminent collator of the manuscripts of Revelation, said Erasmus did not take this reading from the Latin, but from Greek Manuscript 2049 or 141. It is also in Andreas manuscripts.

Combs assertions dissolve when one looks in any critical apparatus. (Please check: von Soden, Tischendorfs 8th edition, Nestle-Aland 26th edition, Alford, United Bible Societies, Metzgers Textual Commentary, Hoskier: Revelation, Charles: Revelation.

See Hoskiers Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse. If the reader cannot access the cited critical editions, J. Moormans book, When the KJV Departs from the [false] Majority Text of Hodges-Farstad, contains this and much additional information. It is available from A.V. Publications.

Contrary to Combs footnoted list of KJV errors: • The word ”and” is in Rev. 22:16 in MSS 296 and 2066 and 17 of Hoskiers Greek cursives. •

The second ”and” is also in Rev. 22:17 in Greek MSS 209, 218, 254, 296, 1894, 2049, 2050, 2066, 2075, 2321, as well as in the ancient Syriac, Coptic, Arminian, and Arabic Bibles.

In Rev. 22:18 ”for” is in Greek MS 2066 and 8 of Hoskiers cursives, as well as the ancient Coptic and Ethiopic Bibles.

“And from the things which are written in this book” is in Rev. 22:19 in Greek MS 296, 2049 and the ancient Arabic Bible.

Finally, ”you” is in Rev. 22:21 in Greek manuscript 296, 2050, 2066, and 15 of Hoskiers cursives, as well as in the ancient Ethiopic Bible.

James White

“Why does the TR often give readings that place it in contrast with the united testimony of the Majority Text…Often, because Erasmus imported entire passages from the Latin Vulgate. This is how Erasmus came up with “the book of life” at Revelation 22:19 rather than the reading of the Greek manuscripts, “the tree of life.” Seemingly, the Vulgate edition Erasmus used to translate the last six verses of Revelation into Greek contained this reading, and it survived all the editorial work on the text over the next century to end up serving as the basis of the KJV.” ^{(The King James Only Controversy, by James White, 2009)}

In response to Kirk DiVietro James White wrote:

When Dr. DiVietro “discounted” the Vulgate, he also made errors in the process. For example, in discussing Revelation 22:19 and Erasmus’ reading of “book of life” over against the reading of the Greek manuscripts, “tree of life,” (pp. 27-28 of his book), he makes a big deal, providing a long endnote on page 28, of saying that the Latin Vulgate doesn’t read “book of life” but reads “tree of life,” concluding that, “One thing is sure. Erasmus did not get ‘book of life’ from the Latin.” Seemingly he neglected to consult a critical edition of the Vulgate, however, for if he had, he would have found that a number of Vulgate editions do read “libro” (book) rather than “ligno” (tree).(2)This kind of basic error should cause the reader to consider well the accuracy of the response as a whole. [3]

NET Bible Notes

NET bible notes on the subject:

tc The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV rests, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek mss. The most notorious of these is this reading. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while “the tree” of life, found in the best and virtually all Greek mss, is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin mss; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators. (This textual problem is not discussed in NA27.)

Jan Krans

Dutch scholar Jan Krans (VU University, Amsterdam) has written a 19pp. refutation of the KJVO claims made by Thomas Holland in his book, Crowned with Glory, regarding the "tree of life"/"book of life" reading of Rev. 22:19.

Abstract:

"With Thomas Holland's lengthy discussion of a reading in Rev 22:19 as an example, this article shows how Holland’s way of doing New Testament textual criticism falls short on all academic standards. With respect to the main issue, Erasmus’ retranslation of the final verses of Revelation, Holland fails to properly find, address and evaluate both primary and secondary sources."

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v16/Krans2011.pdf

Krans characterizes Holland's work as a "sloppy (lack of) scholarship" (p.6) and openly calls Holland's academic qualifications into question (p.1, n.1) and chooses to "refrain from using the title 'Dr.' which he [Holland] himself consistently uses."

But strangely Krans rejects evidence from early Latin fathers by saying:

"Are these Greek or Latin fathers and commentators? And if they are Latin, do they depend on the Vulgate for their text? And if this is conceivable, why count them as 'evidence' for the reading 'book of life'?" - Textualcriticism list, July 24, 2006.

But this is clearly stacking the evidence, as it is easily proven that early Latin writers were conversant also in Greek, and vice versa, and would have gladly used either Greek or Latin bibles. Also, any Latin quotes before 500 would most represent the Old Latin manuscripts rather than the Vulgate.

Krans states concerning Erasmus:

For Revelation, he based his Greek text on a single manuscript, minuscule 1r (now numbered 2814 according to the new Gregory-Aland number).2 This manuscript, however, lacks the final verses of the book, and in order to have a complete text, Erasmus retranslated these verses into Greek from the Latin. Elements of his retranslation survive in every edition of the so-called Textus Receptus, the standard text of the printed Greek New Testament until the nineteenth century.

Erasmus states more than once, as demonstrated infra, that he had several “copies” (“exemplars”) of even the scarcest text, the Apocalypse. For the latter, in at least one instance, he identifies his source: viz. the unpublished Aldine edition in Venice, which was based on manuscripts differing, in parts, from those drawn on by Erasmus for his first edition. In that instance a reading was obtained, on Erasmus’ instructions, by his co-editors in Basle, either in person, or by correspondence, from the Aldus printers. The exemplars mentioned by Erasmus were most probably, therefore, either his own copies of the “oldest and most correct” manuscripts, or those of his illustrious co-editors, supplementing the four original documents referred to supra. An example of the former is Erasmus’ “revised copy” (recognitum exemplar) of the text of the Apocalypse obtained from the Reuchlin codex which he sent to Basle to his co-editors, along with the instructions to procure from the Aldine edition the one reading he was missing. [4]

Erasmus said in his own words:

At the end of the Apocalypse, the manuscript I used (I had only one, for the book is rarely found in Greek) was lacking one or two lines. I added them, following the Latin codices. They were of the kind that could be restored out of the preceding text. Thus, when I sent the revised copy to Basel, I wrote to my friends to restore the place out of the Aldine edition; for I had not yet bought that work. They did as I instructed them. What, I ask you, do I owe to Lee in this case? Did he himself restore what was missing? But he had no text except mine. Ah, but he warned me! As if I had not stated in the annotations of the first edition what I had done and what was missing.

Krans' biased Latin translation

On pages 55-56 Krans offers a translation of Erasmus that is different from scholar Erika Rummel.

The Latin in Krans' book:

"Dubium non erat quin essent omissa, et erant perpauca. Proinde nos, ne hiaret lacuna, ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca. Quod ipsum tamen noluimus latere lectorem, fassi in annotationibus quid a nobis esset factum ut, si quid dissiderent verba nostra ab his quae posuisset autor huius operis, lector nactus exemplar restitueret. ... Et tamen hoc ipsum non eramus ausuri in Euangeliis, quod hie fecimus, ac ne in epistolis quidem apostolicis. Huius libri sermo simplicissimus est, et argumentum fere historicum, ne quid dicam, de autore olim incerto. Postremo locus hie coronis tantum est operis" (Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei, ASD IX-4, p. 278 11. 35-39.39-43; cf. p. 120 11. 303-304 and Apolog. resp. inuect. Ed. Lei, ASD IX-4, pp. 54-55 11. 894-914).

Jan Krans:

There was no doubt that some things were missing, and it was not much. Therefore we completed the Greek from our Latin texts, so that there might be no gap. We did not want to hide this from the reader, however, and acknowledged in the Annotationes what we had done, in order that, if our words differed in some respect from those that the author of this work had provided, the reader who obtained a manuscript could restore them. ... And even this that we did here we would not have dared to do in the case of the Gospels nor indeed in the apostolic Epistles. The style of this book is very simple and its contents are mostly narrative, let alone the fact that its author has long since been unknown. Finally this place is only the ending of the book.

Erika Rummel:

There was no doubt that the words had been omitted, and they were only a few. To avoid leaving a lacuna in my text, I supplied the Greek out of our Latin version. I did not want to conceal this from the reader, however, and admitted in the annotations what I had done. My thought was that the reader, if he had access to a manuscript, could correct anything in our words that differed from those put by the author of this work. … And yet I would not have dared to do in the Gospels or even in the apostolic Epistles what I have done here. The language of this book is very simple, and the content has mostly a historical sense, not to mention that the authorship was once uncertain. Finally, this passage is merely the conclusion of the work.

Krans' failure to connect the dots

In Chapter 2, on Page 32, of Jan Krans' book Beyond What is Written, he shows more error that is parroted by James White. In the context of homoeoteleuton...

"...Another clear description of the process can be found in Erasmus' reaction to one of Lee's criticisms:

I felt that the scribe had made an error for the following reason: because the words 'in this book' occur twice, he turned his eyes to the second instance, omitting the words in between. There is no stone on which the copyists stumble more often.¹⁶..."

Krans then has the footnote:

"...16 "Sensimus autem scribam per eam occasionem errasse, quod cum bis ponatur in libro isto ille ad posterius oculos deflexerit relictis que sunt in medio. Siquidem ad nullum lapidem frequentius impingunt librarii" (Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei, ASD IX-4, p. 278 11. 32-34). This description is nice and clearly based on acquaintance with scribal practice, but Erasmus is mistaken about the text-critical case he is describing. In min. 2814, the manuscript he used for Revelation in his first edition, the final verses of the book are not missing because of homoeoteleuton, but simply because a leaf of the manuscript is missing (actually — as is often stated — it is not the final leaf of the manuscript that is missing, but the leaf with, besides part of the commentary, the final verses of the text, to wit Rev 22:16-21, from the words ὁ ἀστὴρ at the end of verse 16 onwards). It has to be granted, however, that min. 2814 or its Vorlage certainly suffered from homoeoteleuton at many places. One might conclude that homoeoteleuton phenomena were familiar to Erasmus to such an extent that he could even use them as a subterfuge when he no longer remembered the exact state of affairs. For a harsher view, see Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde 1, pp. 14-15.

Notice that Erasmus clearly said it was homoeoteleuton, but Krans is following the errors of Delitzsch and not recognizing the two separate issues, one related to the Greek manuscripts containing homoeoteleuton in Revelation 22:19, and the other being the last 6 verses of the Reuchlin’s codex (2814) which he traveled to examine. By mixing these events and claiming Erasmus had only one manuscript for Revelation, this opens up all types of speculation and erroneous conclusions.

In krans' book Erasmus and the Text of Revelation 22:19 he writes in a footnote:

Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei, ASD IX-4, p. 278 ll. 35-39 and 39-43; cf. p. 120 ll. 303-304: “... quod in fine Apocalypsis paucula verba adiecerim Graeco codici ex nostris Latinis” (“... that at the end of Revelation I added some words to the Greek book on the basis of our Latin ones”). Translation Erika Rummel, CWE 72, p. 344. Instead of “the authorship was once uncertain”, I would prefer, with another nuance of “olim”, “the authorship has long since been uncertain”.

He admits he changed the entire meaning from Rummel by redefining Olim. The Lewis, Charlton, T. An Elementary Latin Dictionary, New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago. American Book Company, 1890 says:

ōlim adv.,

at that time, some time ago, once upon a time, once, formerly, of old: ut fuit olim Sisyphus, H.: sic olim loquebantur: ut erant olim: Alium esse censes nunc me, atque olim, T.—Once and again, now and then, at times, customarily, frequently, ever: saxum tunditur olim Fluctibus, etc., V.: ut pueris olim dant crustula Doctores, H.: ut olim vagantur apes, O.: Vestra meos olim si fistula dicat amores, if ever, V.—This long time, this good while: Audio quid veteres olim moneatis amici, Iu.—Of the future, one day, some time, hereafter: utinam coram tecum olim, potius quam per epistulas!: non si male nunc et olim Sic erit, H.: forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit, V.

olim at that time, some time ago, once upon a time, once, formerly, of old (Lewis & Short Elem. Lewis)

Chris Thomas

Chris Thomas of the Confessional Bibliology Facebook group stated:

The picture contains the Greek texts for Erasmus' last 6 verses of Revelation on the left and the last 6 of the Aldine text on the right. The Aldine text was prepared prior to Erasmus' text, but was not published until 1518. This is where he got the Greek for his last 6 verses. The back translation comment makes sense when printing practices of the 16th century are taken into account. The printers would need to know the space required and the movable type required for these last 6 verses. The easiest way to approximate it would be back translating it from the Latin. This would give the printer the necessary information. The wording in verse 19 in both editions is identical. This and Erasmus' explanation of his note in the Annotations to Lee discredits the myth that the Textus Receptus is somehow undermined by the supposed "back translating" of Erasmus. Like the rush to print, the Comma wager, not having access to Vaticanus, this is yet another myth about Erasmus. But even if we assume that his detractors are correct, it is still a meaningless accusation as it ignores the work of Stephanus & Beza. It should embarrass promoters of this myth as its origins arise from Bengel who wished to discredit Erasmus to push his own unusual view of Eschatology which caused him to predict the return of Christ in June of 1836.

[5]

Revelation 22:16-21

Revelation 22:16-21 KJV

• 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

• 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

• 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

• 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

• 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

• 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Greek Editions Compared

Revelation 22.16-21 in Desiderius Erasmus' 1516 edition

Revelation 22.16-21 in Colines' 1534 edition

The last six verses of Erasmus' first edition of 1516 claimed to be a back-translation from the Latin:

Erasmus 1516

16 ... ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός.

17 Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, Ἐλθε καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω, Ἐλθε. καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐλθέτω, καὶ ὁ θέλων λαμβανέτω τὸ ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

18 Συμμαρτυροῦμαι γὰρ παντὶ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, ἐάν τις ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα, ἐπιθήσει ὁ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ·

19 Καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βιβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βιβλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

20 Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα· ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ· Ἀμὴν καὶ ἔρχου Κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

21 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. Ἀμήν.

Colines 1534

16 ... ὁ ἀστὴρ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός.

17 καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσι. ἐλθε. καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω. ἐλθέ. καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐλθέτω. καὶ ὁ θέλων, λαμβανέτω τὸ ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

18 συμμαρτυροῦμαι γὰρ παντὶ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας βιβλίου τούτου. ἐάν τις ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταὐτά. ἐπιθήσει ὁ Θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

19 καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελοι ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βίβλου ζωῆς, καὶ πόλεως ἁγίας, καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

20 λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα. ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. ἀμήν. ναί ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

21 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ημῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. Aμήν.

Stephanus 1550

16 ... ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός

17 Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, Ἐλθε, καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω, Ἐλθε, καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐλθέτω· καὶ ὁ θέλων λαμβανέτω τὸ ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν

18 Συμμαρτυροῦμαι γὰρ παντὶ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, ἐάν τις ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ' αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ :19 καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ

20 Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ναί, ἔρχου, κύριε Ἰησοῦ

21 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. Ἀμήν

Beza 1598

... ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς, καὶ ὀρθρινός.

17 Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, Ἐλθε. καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω, Ἐλθε. καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐλθέτω, καὶ ὁ θέλων λαμβανέτω τὸ ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

18 Συμμαρτυροῦμαι γὰρ παντὶ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, ἐάν τις ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα, ἐπιθήσει ὁ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ·

19 Καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βιβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βιβλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

20 Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα· ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμὴν καὶ ἔρχου Κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

21 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. Ἀμήν.

Scrivener 1881

16 ... ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὀρθρινός.

17 καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, Ἐλθε. καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω, Ἐλθε. καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐλθέτω· καὶ ὁ θέλων λαμβανέτω τὸ ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

18 Συμμαρτυροῦμαι γὰρ παντὶ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, ἐάν τις ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ Θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ·

19 καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφαιρήσει ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

20 λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. ἀμήν. Ναί ἔρχου, Κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

21 Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ημῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. ἀμήν.

(Unfinished chart)

See Also

• Revelation 22:16; 17; 18; 19; 20; & 21.
• Desiderius Erasmus
• Minuscule 2814 1rK
• Johann Reuchlin
• Franz Delitzsch
• Jan Krans
• James White
• Bruce Metzger
• Novum Instrumentum omne
• Latin Vulgate

External Links

• Revelation 22:19 -"book of life" and the last six verses of Revelation 22 An excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory
• The Myth of Erasmus' " THE MYTH OF ERASMUS’ “Back Translating”. by christianhospitality.org
• Erasmian Myths: Revelation Back Translated from the Vulgate? by Chris Thomas June 8th, 2016
• Erasmus and the Greek Text of Revelation (Jan Krans) YouTube Video, 6 Jul 2020.
• Erasmus' Manuscript of Revelation by James Snapp Jr
• Erasmus and the Text of Revelation 22:19 - A Critique of Thomas Holland’s Crowned With Glory by Jan Krans

• Nick Sayers Examining the Last Six Verses of Revelation YouTube 7th Nov 2021.

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

Some Helpful Links Please Donate Donate Textus Receptus Facebook

The Old Paths Publications Textus Receptus Bibles KJV Today Another King James Bible Believer Dean Burgon Society Treasury of Scripture Knowledge The Kings Bible King James Bible Translators King James Bible Dictionary Peter Van Kleeck YT

Nick Sayers Videos KJV-Asia Sinaiticus.Net - Exposing Codex Sinaiticus Trinitarian Bible Society Websters Dictionary 1828 AV Defense Stylos Defending Easter in the KJV AV 1611

Confessional Bibliology King James Bible Research Council Scion of Zion Scion of Zion Versions Compared Adullam Films KJV Textual Technology Jonathan Sheffield Videos Pure Bible Forum David Cloud Articles

List of New Testament Papyri

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 ·

List of New Testament minuscules

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 · 141 · 142 · 143 · 144 · 145 · 146 · 147 · 148 · 149 · 150 · 151 · 152 · 153 · 154 · 155 · 156 · 157 · 158 · 159 · 160 · 161 · 162 · 163 · 164 · 165 · 166 · 167 · 168 · 169 · 170 · 171 · 172 · 173 · 174 · 175 · 176 · 177 · 178 · 179 · 180 · 181 · 182 · 183 · 184 · 185 · 186 · 187 · 188 · 189 · 190 · 191 · 192 · 193 · 194 · 195 · 196 · 197 · 198 · 199 · 200 · 201 · 202 · 203 · 204 · 205 · 206 · 207 · 208 · 209 · 210 · 211 · 212 · 213 · 214 · 215 · 216 · 217 · 218 · 219 · 220 · 221 · 222 · 223 · 224 · 225 · 226 · 227 · 228 · 229 · 230 · 231 · 232 · 233 · 234 · 235 · 236 · 237 · 238 · 239 · 240 · 241 · 242 · 243 · 244 · 245 · 246 · 247 · 248 · 249 · 250 · 251 · 252 · 253 · 254 · 255 · 256 · 257 · 258 · 259 · 260 · 261 · 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 266 · 267 · 268 · 269 · 270 · 271 · 272 · 273 · 274 · 275 · 276 · 277 · 278 · 279 · 280 · 281 · 282 · 283 · 284 · 285 · 286 · 287 · 288 · 289 · 290 · 291 · 292 · 293 · 294 · 295 · 296 · 297 · 298 · 299 · 300 · 301 · 302 · 303 · 304 · 305 · 306 · 307 · 308 · 309 · 310 · 311 · 312 · 313 · 314 · 315 · 316 · 317 · 318 · 319 · 320 · 321 · 322 · 323 · 324 · 325 · 326 · 327 · 328 · 329 · 330 · 331 · 332 · 333 · 334 · 335 · 336 · 337 · 338 · 339 · 340 · 341 · 342 · 343 · 344 · 345 · 346 · 347 · 348 · 349 · 350 · 351 · 352 · 353 · 354 · 355 · 356 · 357 · 358 · 359 · 360 · 361 · 362 · 363 · 364 · 365 · 366 · 367 · 368 · 369 · 370 · 371 · 372 · 373 · 374 · 375 · 376 · 377 · 378 · 379 · 380 · 381 · 382 · 383 · 384 · 385 · 386 · 387 · 388 · 389 · 390 · 391 · 392 · 393 · 394 · 395 · 396 · 397 · 398 · 399 · 400 · 401 · 402 · 403 · 404 · 405 · 406 · 407 · 408 · 409 · 410 · 411 · 412 · 413 · 414 · 415 · 416 · 417 · 418 · 419 · 420 · 421 · 422 · 423 · 424 · 425 · 426 · 427 · 428 · 429 · 430 · 431 · 432 · 433 · 434 · 435 · 436 · 437 · 438 · 439 · 440 · 441 · 442 · 443 · 444 · 445 · 446 · 447 · 448 · 449 · 450 · 451 · 452 · 453 · 454 · 455 · 456 · 457 · 458 · 459 · 460 · 461 · 462 · 463 · 464 · 465 · 466 · 467 · 468 · 469 · 470 · 471 · 472 · 473 · 474 · 475 · 476 · 477 · 478 · 479 · 480 · 481 · 482 · 483 · 484 · 485 · 486 · 487 · 488 · 489 · 490 · 491 · 492 · 493 · 494 · 495 · 496 · 497 · 498 · 499 · 500 · 501 · 502 · 503 · 504 · 505 · 506 · 507 · 543 · 544 · 565 · 566 · 579 · 585 · 614 · 639 · 653 · 654 · 655 · 656 · 657 · 658 · 659 · 660 · 661 · 669 · 676 · 685 · 700 · 798 · 823 · 824 · 825 · 826 · 827 · 828 · 829 · 830 · 831 · 876 · 891 · 892 · 893 · 1071 · 1143 · 1152 · 1241 · 1253 · 1423 · 1424 · 1432 · 1582 · 1739 · 1780 · 1813 · 1834 · 2050 · 2053 · 2059 · 2060 · 2061 · 2062 · 2174 · 2268 · 2344 · 2423 · 2427 · 2437 · 2444 · 2445 · 2446 · 2460 · 2464 · 2491 · 2495 · 2612 · 2613 · 2614 · 2615 · 2616 · 2641 · 2754 · 2755 · 2756 · 2757 · 2766 · 2767 · 2768 · 2793 · 2802 · 2803 · 2804 · 2805 · 2806 · 2807 · 2808 · 2809 · 2810 · 2811 · 2812 · 2813 · 2814 · 2815 · 2816 · 2817 · 2818 · 2819 · 2820 · 2821 · 2855 · 2856 · 2857 · 2858 · 2859 · 2860 · 2861 · 2862 · 2863 · 2881 · 2882 · 2907 · 2965 ·

List of New Testament uncials

01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08 · 09 · 010 · 011 · 012 · 013 · 014 · 015 · 016 · 017 · 018 · 019 · 020 · 021 · 022 · 023 · 024 · 025 · 026 · 027 · 028 · 029 · 030 · 031 · 032 · 033 · 034 · 035 · 036 · 037 · 038 · 039 · 040 · 041 · 042 · 043 · 044 · 045 · 046 · 047 · 048 · 049 · 050 · 051 · 052 · 053 · 054 · 055 · 056 · 057 · 058 · 059 · 060 · 061 · 062 · 063 · 064 · 065 · 066 · 067 · 068 · 069 · 070 · 071 · 072 · 073 · 074 · 075 · 076 · 077 · 078 · 079 · 080 · 081 · 082 · 083 · 084 · 085 · 086 · 087 · 088 · 089 · 090 · 091 · 092 · 093 · 094 · 095 · 096 · 097 · 098 · 099 · 0100 · 0101 · 0102 · 0103 · 0104 · 0105 · 0106 · 0107 · 0108 · 0109 · 0110 · 0111 · 0112 · 0113 · 0114 · 0115 · 0116 · 0117 · 0118 · 0119 · 0120 · 0121 · 0122 · 0123 · 0124 · 0125 · 0126 · 0127 · 0128 · 0129 · 0130 · 0131 · 0132 · 0134 · 0135 · 0136 · 0137 · 0138 · 0139 · 0140 · 0141 · 0142 · 0143 · 0144 · 0145 · 0146 · 0147 · 0148 · 0149 · 0150 · 0151 · 0152 · 0153 · 0154 · 0155 · 0156 · 0157 · 0158 · 0159 · 0160 · 0161 · 0162 · 0163 · 0164 · 0165 · 0166 · 0167 · 0168 · 0169 · 0170 · 0171 · 0172 · 0173 · 0174 · 0175 · 0176 · 0177 · 0178 · 0179 · 0180 · 0181 · 0182 · 0183 · 0184 · 0185 · 0186 · 0187 · 0188 · 0189 · 0190 · 0191 · 0192 · 0193 · 0194 · 0195 · 0196 · 0197 · 0198 · 0199 · 0200 · 0201 · 0202 · 0203 · 0204 · 0205 · 0206 · 0207 · 0208 · 0209 · 0210 · 0211 · 0212 · 0213 · 0214 · 0215 · 0216 · 0217 · 0218 · 0219 · 0220 · 0221 · 0222 · 0223 · 0224 · 0225 · 0226 · 0227 · 0228 · 0229 · 0230 · 0231 · 0232 · 0234 · 0235 · 0236 · 0237 · 0238 · 0239 · 0240 · 0241 · 0242 · 0243 · 0244 · 0245 · 0246 · 0247 · 0248 · 0249 · 0250 · 0251 · 0252 · 0253 · 0254 · 0255 · 0256 · 0257 · 0258 · 0259 · 0260 · 0261 · 0262 · 0263 · 0264 · 0265 · 0266 · 0267 · 0268 · 0269 · 0270 · 0271 · 0272 · 0273 · 0274 · 0275 · 0276 · 0277 · 0278 · 0279 · 0280 · 0281 · 0282 · 0283 · 0284 · 0285 · 0286 · 0287 · 0288 · 0289 · 0290 · 0291 · 0292 · 0293 · 0294 · 0295 · 0296 · 0297 · 0298 · 0299 · 0300 · 0301 · 0302 · 0303 · 0304 · 0305 · 0306 · 0307 · 0308 · 0309 · 0310 · 0311 · 0312 · 0313 · 0314 · 0315 · 0316 · 0317 · 0318 · 0319 · 0320 · 0321 · 0322 · 0323 ·

List of New Testament lectionaries

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 25b · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 · 141 · 142 · 143 · 144 · 145 · 146 · 147 · 148 · 149 · 150 · 151 · 152 · 153 · 154 · 155 · 156 · 157 · 158 · 159 · 160 · 161 · 162 · 163 · 164 · 165 · 166 · 167 · 168 · 169 · 170 · 171 · 172 · 173 · 174 · 175 · 176 · 177 · 178 · 179 · 180 · 181 · 182 · 183 · 184 · 185 · 186 · 187 · 188 · 189 · 190 · 191 · 192 · 193 · 194 · 195 · 196 · 197 · 198 · 199 · 200 · 201 · 202 · 203 · 204 · 205 · 206a · 206b · 207 · 208 · 209 · 210 · 211 · 212 · 213 · 214 · 215 · 216 · 217 · 218 · 219 · 220 · 221 · 222 · 223 · 224 · 225 · 226 · 227 · 228 · 229 · 230 · 231 · 232 · 233 · 234 · 235 · 236 · 237 · 238 · 239 · 240 · 241 · 242 · 243 · 244 · 245 · 246 · 247 · 248 · 249 · 250 · 251 · 252 · 253 · 254 · 255 · 256 · 257 · 258 · 259 · 260 · 261 · 262 · 263 · 264 · 265 · 266 · 267 · 268 · 269 · 270 · 271 · 272 · 273 · 274 · 275 · 276 · 277 · 278 · 279 · 280 · 281 · 282 · 283 · 284 · 285 · 286 · 287 · 288 · 289 · 290 · 291 · 292 · 293 · 294 · 295 · 296 · 297 · 298 · 299 · 300 · 301 · 302 · 303 · 304 · 305 · 306 · 307 · 308 · 309 · 310 · 311 · 312 · 313 · 314 · 315 · 316 · 317 · 318 · 319 · 320 · 321 · 322 · 323 · 324 · 325 · 326 · 327 · 328 · 329 · 330 · 331 · 332 · 368 · 449 · 451 · 501 · 502 · 542 · 560 · 561 · 562 · 563 · 564 · 648 · 649 · 809 · 965 · 1033 · 1358 · 1386 · 1491 · 1423 · 1561 · 1575 · 1598 · 1599 · 1602 · 1604 · 1614 · 1619 · 1623 · 1637 · 1681 · 1682 · 1683 · 1684 · 1685 · 1686 · 1691 · 1813 · 1839 · 1965 · 1966 · 1967 · 2005 · 2137 · 2138 · 2139 · 2140 · 2141 · 2142 · 2143 · 2144 · 2145 · 2164 · 2208 · 2210 · 2211 · 2260 · 2261 · 2263 · 2264 · 2265 · 2266 · 2267 · 2276 · 2307 · 2321 · 2352 · 2404 · 2405 · 2406 · 2411 · 2412 ·