Abstract
Rev 21.3b is a conundrum for translation. The text-critical data point to the UBS5 reading as original but copyists and translators have struggled with the awkwardness of the text. This article reviews translations of Rev 21.3b and the text-critical data and suggests that the translation “and ‘God-with-them’ himself will be their God” resolves the problem and is consistent with the UBS5 reading. This translation finds corroboration in other characteristics of the Apocalypse.
The text of Rev 21.3b is a conundrum, although one would not know this from reading most translations. In many English Bibles it is presented more or less in these words: “And God himself will be with them.” The conundrum is that this translation leaves out a final αὐτῶν θεός that was likely part of the original text of the Apocalypse.
1
The UBS5 reading for Rev 21.3 is:
καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς μεγάλης ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου λεγούσης· ἰδοὺ ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ σκηνώσει μετ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ αὐτοὶ λαοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσονται, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός].
This article focuses on the final clause, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός. How have translators and commentators understood this clause, and what text-critical evidence is used to support the notion that the final two words do not belong to the original reading? Is that evidence strong enough to justify the shorter reading, and what characteristics of the author’s writing style can help clarify the text?
I will proceed in three steps to answer these questions. First, I will review the ways a number of translations and commentators deal with this phrase in Rev 21.3b. Second, I will review the external and internal evidence for the variant in this passage, looking particularly at the weight of manuscript evidence in favor of one reading or another and reviewing both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities. Finally, on the basis of intrinsic probabilities, I will consider the way in which allusion to Isaiah in Rev 21.3b explains the text-critical challenge of the passage. In the conclusion, the evidence will be summarized and a recommendation made concerning the translation of Rev 21.3b.
Translations of and commentaries on Rev 21.3b
Table 1 illustrates the way the final clause of Rev 21.3b is rendered in many English translations as well as in French, Spanish, and German.
Translation of Rev 21.3b in different versions.
As is apparent in table 1, the translations are about evenly divided between rejecting or accepting the final αὐτῶν θεός. Those not including the final αὐτῶν θεός are in the upper part of table 1 while those including the final αὐτῶν θεός are in the lower part of the table.
The textual bases for the translations are listed in table 1. The relationship to the final αὐτῶν θεός varies in the different listed Greek texts. The TR has a final θεὸς αὐτῶν. The Vulgate has a final eorum Deus. Souter’s 1910 Greek New Testament has the final αὐτῶν θεός (Souter 1910). However, Tregelles and WH have μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται without the final αὐτῶν θεός (Tregelles 1857–1879). The same is true of the Nestle text up through the twenty-fifth edition, with the text reading καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται. 4 The UBS edition of 1966 and editions thereafter, together with NA26 onward, have the final αὐτῶν θεός in brackets. Surprisingly, more of the translations that occurred after the bracketed addition of the final αὐτῶν θεός to the printed text dropped these words than those made before. This illustrates the ambivalence over the Greek wording of Rev 21.3b. 5 Interestingly, both of the oldest modern versions, KJV and Luther, include translation of the final αὐτῶν θεός, though dealing with it in differing ways.
Many of the translations that include the final αὐτῶν θεός often deal with it in the same way, typically adding “and be” (“and be their God”). ESV differs slightly by using the preposition “as” in place of “and be” (“as their God”). Unique are the Luther translation and NJB, which separate out the first use of θεός and link it to μετ’ αὐτῶν to form an implied moniker—“Gott mit ihnen” (God with them) or “God-with-them.” We will return to this below.
A number of modern commentaries on Revelation deal with the text-critical details of Rev 21.3b and come to comparable conclusions. David Aune is representative. He translates 21.3b as “and God himself will be with them as their God” (1998, 1109). He argues that the reading καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ἔσται μετ᾽ αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν “fits the style of Revelation since pronouns in the gen. always follow θεός elsewhere … but it is too poorly attested to be anything other than a scribal correction” (1111). Aune feels that the best external attestation is with the longer UBS reading, which includes the final [αὐτῶν θεός], but that it does not fit the style of Revelation regarding the genitive pronoun in relation to the noun (1111). 6 His translation is identical to that of ESV.
Others who concur with Aune that the final αὐτῶν θεός (or θεὸς αὐτῶν) should be part of the text include Brian Blount (2009, 375–76), Grant Osborne (2002, 744), Craig Koester (2014, 798), and G. K. Beale (1999, 1048). Typically, they note that the final αὐτῶν θεός is awkward or redundant but that this makes it the more difficult reading and hence original. 7
Richard Bauckham, strikingly, demurs from the scholars discussed above. He translates 21.3b as “and God himself will be with them” (Bauckham 1993, 310). Also, in contrast to the other scholars, he argues that καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν έ̓σται (found in א Byz [046] and some versions with variation) is likely the original. He states, “The major variant readings (λαός for λαοί and the addition of θεὸς αὐτῶν after ἔσται) are explicable as attempts to conform the text to the standard Old Testament covenant declarations: ‘They shall be my people, and I will be their God’ (e.g., Ezek 37.23; Zech 8.8)” (Bauckham 1993, 310).
Finally, much of the discussion above echoes Metzger’s note on 21.3b that it is “singularly difficult to determine the original reading” (1994, 688). He wonders if αὐτῶν θεός or θεὸς αὐτῶν were omitted because they were superfluous, or whether they were added as a marginal gloss based on Isa 7.14 and 8.8 (see more below). He suggests the αὐτῶν θεός may have been added to parallel the phrase καὶ αὐτοὶ λαοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσονται (689). Finally, Metzger debates whether the final words should be ordered αὐτῶν θεός or θεὸς αὐτῶν, and comes to no clear conclusion (689). Surprisingly, Metzger makes no argument about any genealogical relationship or lectio difficilior, which would seem appropriate in this case. Furthermore, arguing about changes for stylistic parallelism is a two-way street. One can as easily argue that the ordering of the sentence and the personal pronoun are markers of the author’s hand as those of a copyist’s.
What the above summary suggests is that scholars and translators are ambivalent about Rev 21.3b. Many seem drawn away from the unusual ending of the verse and, with Metzger, see the final words as superfluous or added by a copyist later. Many opt for a translation along the lines of “and God himself will be with them.” None, except Bauckham (and Tasker in the case of NEB), opt for the Sinaiticus reading as the original. Many note that the UBS reading is the more difficult and imply it is prior. Thus, we note uncertainty concerning the translation of 21.3b but some consensus that the final αὐτῶν θεός is part of the original text. This leads to a review of the text-critical data.
Text-critical details of Rev 21.3b
The review below of the text-critical data makes use of the I–V classification system developed by Kurt and Barbara Aland for categorizing major manuscripts (Aland and Aland 1987, 72–180). The system is described in table 2. In the Aland schema, the lower the category number, the more important the text for establishing the original text. Tables 3–6 present the cataloged data for the UBS5 major variants in Rev 21.3b in tabular form for ease of seeing the patterns in the external data. 8 The data of the church fathers and versions help to verify when a reading originated and the geographic spread of the reading.
Aland and Aland classification system.
Variant data on Rev 21.3b—UBS reading, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός.
Variant data on Rev 21.3b—Variant 1, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ἔσται μετ᾽ αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν.
Variant data on Rev 21.3b—Variant 2, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται θεός.
Variant data on Rev 21.3b—Variant 3, και αὐτος ὁ θεος μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται.
The external evidence for these variants can be summarized as follows. The two variants with the earliest witnesses are the UBS reading and variant 3. The reason for this is the two category I manuscripts from the fourth and fifth centuries—Sinaiticus for variant 3 and Alexandrinus for the UBS reading. While Sinaiticus is earlier with a shorter reading, in Revelation its text is less reliable than in the rest of the New Testament (Karrer 2017, 85). 10 Consequently, typically more weight is given to Alexandrinus in Revelation. The external evidence bears this out. More category I and II manuscripts support the UBS reading than variant 3. The spread of support across categories I, II, and III for the UBS reading do as well. Further, the wider geographic spread of support in the church fathers from the second through eighth centuries and some geographic spread in versions (vg, eth) speak in favor of the UBS reading. In comparison, the support for variant 3 is less striking in terms of category support, has narrower geographic spread from the church fathers, but does have some geographic spread in terms of version support (cop, it). The early date for the church fathers and the Coptic support from the third century do support variant 3.
In comparison to the UBS reading and variant 3, variants 1 and 2 show weaker support. Variant 1 has only category III and V support from the ninth through fifteenth centuries and has only one Greek father in support, with no versional support. Variant 2 has somewhat more significant support with category II witnesses from the ninth through twelfth centuries and Coptic in both Sahidic and part of the Bohairic from the third century. But this still does not compare with the support for the UBS reading.
The genealogical relationship among the readings points to the UBS reading as the original. It is clearly the lectio difficilior, so evident in the relative smoothness of the other readings in comparison. This detail of the difficulty of the UBS reading stands in contrast with variant 3, which is the smoothest of the readings. It is difficult to see how the UBS reading would arise from the variant 3 reading (that is, who would make the reading more difficult by adding a seemingly superfluous αὐτῶν θεός, especially in the atypical order for Revelation’s use of the pronoun in relation to the word it modifies?). 11
It seems obvious that Rev 21.3 proved challenging for scribes, given the number of variants and the small differences among readings (Karrer 2017, 203–5). 12 Manuscript 2050, for example, has the UBS reading (καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός), but with a καί added before ἔσται, making for a smoother reading (καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός). And manuscript 1854 has a reading smoother than the UBS reading, reversing the final two words, thus θεὸς αὐτῶν (καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται θεὸς αὐτῶν), conforming to the much more common format for the genitive pronoun in Revelation. The UBS reading and variant 2 are actually very similar with only the difference of an αὐτῶν before θεός in the UBS reading. But the UBS reading has the advantage of being earlier and perhaps a bit less smooth. And it has the wider geographic distribution, as noted above. On these grounds, genealogically the UBS reading seems more likely the source of the other readings.
What are the transcriptional probabilities for Rev 21.3b? What would a scribe likely do with the reading? It is unlikely that a scribe given variant 3 (καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται), found in Sinaiticus, 13 would change it by adding αὐτῶν θεός, thus making it a harder reading. But a scribe given the UBS reading (καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός) would be much more likely to make any of the myriad changes found in the eighteen different readings documented by Karrer (2017, 203–5). A sample of these variant readings can illustrate the point. The three most common readings in order of number of manuscripts in Karrer’s list (2017, 203) are:
(1) καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται (“and God himself will be with them”), found in 86 manuscripts. This is the same as variant 3 above.
(2) καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ἔσται μετ’ αὐτῶν (“and God himself will be with them”), found in 62 manuscripts. This is the same as found in Sinaiticus.
(3) καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ἔσται μετ᾽ αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν (“and God himself will be with them as their God”), found in 54 manuscripts. 14 This is the same as variant 1 above.
Numbers one and two are very similar, recognized as essentially the same reading in UBS5. Number one is smoother than the UBS reading, not having what could appear to a scribe as a superfluous αὐτῶν θεός. Reading two is similar, with the added smoothness of having the ἔσται before the μετ’ αὐτῶν (so Sinaiticus). Number three varies from the UBS reading in two ways: It has θεὸς αὐτῶν instead of αὐτῶν θεός, and thus follows the much more common relationship in Revelation of the genitive pronoun following the word it modifies instead of preceding it. Number three also, like number two, has the ἔσται before the μετ’ αὐτῶν. This gives a smoother reading of the sentence, while at the same time all the individual words in the UBS reading are present. It is clear that each of these differences from the UBS reading is smoother than the UBS reading in one way or another. Consequently, the transcriptional data support the UBS reading as the original, since it is the more difficult reading and more easily explains the origin of the others.
What about intrinsic probabilities? Above we noted Metzger’s argumentation concerning the words αὐτῶν θεός (1994, 688–89). He debates whether the reading was original or added by a copyist and whether the order should be αὐτῶν θεός or θεὸς αὐτῶν. Concerning the first point, it seems particularly unwarranted in Revelation to argue that a “perceptive copyist” may have added αὐτῶν θεός as an allusion to Isa 7.14 and 8.8. The author of the Apocalypse has a penchant for alluding to OT passages as part of his theological method. If Rev 21.3b contains an allusion to Isa 7.14 and 8.8 (see more below), it would seem much more logical to assume authorial intent rather than a copyist adding the words, particularly since few scribes and commentators seem to have recognized the connection to Isa 7 and 8. If a copyist had done this, it would seem more logical that the OT allusion would have been made easily recognizable. Thus, the intrinsic probability points toward the author having included one or more OT allusions in Rev 21.3b. What might these be?
The significance of ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν in Rev 21.3b
In Rev 21.1-4 numerous OT themes are referenced. Primary focus falls on renewal and redemption (cf. Beale 1999, 1039–48; Aune 1998, 1108–24). 15 The text opens with reference to a new heaven and earth (21.1), clearly alluding to Isa 65.17. In Rev 21.2 the New Jerusalem is described as a bride adorned for her husband. It is reminiscent of the salvation theme of Isa 61.10, “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels” (ESV).
Revelation 21.3-4 stress God’s presence with his people and the healing balm of salvation renewal. God’s tabernacle will be with people, they will be his people, and he will be their God with them. He will wipe all tears from their eyes (cf. Isa 25.8) and the experiences of death, mourning, and suffering will disappear. Commentators note, particularly, ties to Lev 26.11-12; Ezek 37.27; Jer 31.33; and 2 Cor 6.16 (Beale 1999, 1046–47; Koester 2014, 805; Osborne 2002, 734; Blount 2009, 380; Aune 1998, 1122–24). These texts stress God’s presence with his people and their relationship to him (“I will make my tabernacle among you, … and will be your God, and you shall be my people” Lev 26.12; “My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” Ezek 37.27; “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people” Jer 31.33 ESV). 16
How do these themes and OT backgrounds assist in determining the meaning of the most likely wording of Rev 21.3b, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός? The sentence clearly ties to the same themes as those noted above—God with his people, God being their God. The conundrum revolves around the seeming awkwardness of the statement. It would seem that if αὐτῶν θεός were removed, the statement would be simple—“God himself will be with them” (the reading in Sinaiticus and numerous translations). Or if μετ’ αὐτῶν were dropped, the statement would again be simple—“God himself will be their God.” 17
Revelation 21.3b as it stands in the UBS text can be described as a complex stative sentence. 18 It has a subject, αὐτὸς ὁ θεός (leaving aside the μετ’ αὐτῶν for the moment), a predicate, ἔσται, and a predicate nominative, αὐτῶν θεός. The persistent presence of μετ’ αὐτῶν in all readings is what complicates the sentence (as illustrated by the way scribes, translators, and commentators have all wrestled with the text). As noted above, the sentence seems clear if one excludes its last αὐτῶν θεός or if one excludes the μετ’ αὐτῶν. But with both phrases included, the sentence is awkward and complex.
But what if the sentence is not really complex but rather a simple stative sentence? How can this be the case? If the subject is not taken to be ὁ θεός by itself, but rather ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν, the sentence changes into a simple stative sentence with a hyphenated subject—“And ‘God-with-them’ himself will be their God.” In this reading, the obvious OT background is Isa 7.14 (cf. Isa 8.8), “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (ESV). The meaning of the well-known term Immanuel is “God is with us.”
The Gospel of Matthew picks up on this prophecy of Isaiah and links it to the birth of Jesus, who will save his people from their sins (Jesus = Joshua = Yeshua יְהוֹשּׁוּעַ, meaning “Yahweh is salvation”). The evangelist cites Isa 7.14 with Immanuel as the name to be given, and notes that this means “God with us” (μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός, Matt 1.23). Again, in Matt 28.20 the Gospel writer presents an inclusio where Jesus promises, “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος). That Isaiah indicates that a child is receiving the name Immanuel shows that the terminology is not to be taken simply as a phrase, “God is with us,” but rather as a person’s name that reminds the hearer that indeed, God is with us. Matthew follows suit, applying the name to Jesus Christ. And it is such an important concept for the evangelist that it appears at the beginning and end of the book—“God with us” from the birth of Jesus and ever onward.
It seems that the author of the Apocalypse has done something similar in Rev 21.3b with the slightly modified moniker “God-with-them.” 19 This understanding is consistent with the ties to the OT sanctuary in Rev 21.3a (cf. Exod 25.8), the allusion to the rich salvation texts of Lev 26.11-12; Ezek 37.27; Jer 31.33; and 2 Cor 6.16 noted by commentators, along with the numerous allusions to the text of Isaiah in Rev 21.1-4. It then turns out that the text-critical data pointing to καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός as the original reading and the OT background data we have noted here both point in the same direction, with the phrase meaning “And ‘God-with-them’ himself will be their God.”
But is this some unique understanding of the translation that has not been seen before? 20 No. Luther (“und er selbst, Gott mit ihnen, wird ihr Gott sein”) and NJB (“and he will be their God, God-with-them”) clearly pick up on the allusion to Isa 7.14, and Tasker and Metzger, as noted above, also see the connection. Thus, the likely translation of Rev 21.3b should be “and ‘God-with-them’ himself will be their God.”
Is there corroboration for this understanding elsewhere in Revelation? Indeed, there is. In Rev 1.4 ὁ ὤν (the one who is) appears directly after ἀπό (from), which should take a genitive object, whereas ὁ ὤν is nominative. Why the nominative? Because ὁ ὤν is taken as a name (the one who is), the translation of יהוה in the LXX in Exod 3.14.
In Rev 1.17-18 a similar format of naming occurs with Jesus Christ when he calls himself “the first and the last” (ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος), but particularly in the use of the participle ὁ ζῶν (the living one) in v. 18. In the messages to the seven churches, the risen Christ utilizes seven different names for himself in relation to each church’s situation. 21 Other examples throughout the Apocalypse can be cited. 22 Just so, ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν is a moniker as well. Further, if, as is likely, the author of the Apocalypse is using this title to refer to Jesus Christ, then a divine name is being applied to him. This understanding is consistent with the picture of Jesus the Lamb being worshipped in Rev 5. Worship is the central issue of the Apocalypse—true worship versus false worship (cf. Rev 13–14). John is expressly told not to worship an angel but to worship God (Rev 19.10; 22.8-9). But no such restriction is voiced when the Lamb is worshipped. Indeed, the adoration of the Lamb equals that of the one who sits on the throne. Revelation 21.3b confirms this via its appellation “God-with-them” applied to Christ.
We conclude that the external textual evidence, the internal textual evidence (transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability), the intertextual tendency of the author, and the overarching theological themes of the Apocalypse all point in the same direction. Revelation 21.3b should be translated, “And ‘God-with-them’ himself will be their God.”
Footnotes
1
I use the words “original text” to mean the likely earliest text of the Apocalypse that we can attain to. Many textual scholars use the words “initial text” to refer to this.
2
Tasker’s published text of the New Testament has the last phrase of Rev 21.3 as καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται (which is what is found in א [Sinaiticus] with the ἔσται before μετ’ αὐτῶν in א, but in this form in many manuscripts; see the discussion below). Tasker lists in a footnote the reading that would later appear in brackets in NA. Interestingly, in a note concerning Rev 21.3, Tasker states, “The words αὐτῶν θεός or θεὸς αὐτῶν, found after ἔσται in A P 051 1006 1854, the Latin Vulgate, and the Syriac versions, were considered to be due to an adaptation of the passage to Is. 7.14 and 8.8” (Tasker 1964, 444). Since Metzger, in the introduction to the first edition of his Textual Commentary (
), refers to Tasker’s work, one wonders if Metzger’s similar note regarding Rev 21.3 arises from Tasker’s work.
3
The Greek text of WH for 21.3b has the shorter reading, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται, the same as the Majority Text. Consequently, it is instructive that ASV is more in line with the text found in the NA editions (with the brackets).
4
5
See above on Tasker’s discussion of the variant. The NA twenty-sixth through twenty-eighth editions (and the UBS first through fifth editions) all place the final αὐτῶν θεός in brackets [αὐτῶν θεός]. This detail, connected with Metzger’s note in the second edition of his Textual Commentary (1994, 688–89) may account for many of the decisions of translators to drop the final αὐτῶν θεός.
6
While Aune is technically correct regarding the genitive of the pronoun αὐτός in relation to θεός and actually concerning the use of the masculine pronoun αὐτός throughout the Apocalypse, there is another case where the feminine of this pronoun precedes the noun it modifies (18.5, αὐτῆς αἱ ἁμαρτίαι). Aune wrongly lists א with the reading καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός (, 1110). He likely meant A (Alexandrinus) since א is listed a second time with the reading ἔσται μετ’ αὐτῶν.
7
Blount: “The more difficult and therefore preferred reading includes the material rendered in brackets in NA27: autōn theos (‘[as] their God’)” (2009, 375). Osborne: “The manuscript evidence is extremely difficult to evaluate with confidence, but the presence of the phrase [αὐτῶν θεός] is the more difficult reading because it is added to the formula [regarding God being with his people] and is somewhat superfluous” (2002, 744). Koester: “Some manuscripts include the final words ‘their God’ (autōn theos; A 2030 2050 2053), sometimes reversing the sequence (051 1854). Other manuscripts omit the words (א 1778 2081). Since the words seem redundant, they were probably original and later deleted to simplify the style” (2014, 798). Beale: “The concluding αὐτῶν θεός (‘[he will be] their God’) are omitted in some witnesses … because of grammatical awkwardness. … The expanded more difficult reading is represented in A 2030 2050 2053(2062) 2329 al vg Ir” (1999, 1048).
8
The abbreviations in the following tables are those found in UBS5. See , 12–63. The concept of text types inherent in the Alands’ work has been challenged in more recent decades, particularly by those utilizing the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). Debate on the question of text types continues among textual scholars. The CBGM has become the basis for the more recent Nestle–Aland and UBS texts. However, the work on Revelation has not come to completion with this method to date.
10
See Karrer, who notes, “From the second or rather third to the eighth centuries, Rev is only fully witnessed in the well-known Codices Sinaiticus (01) and Alexandrinus (02). And of these, the first one often preserves a peculiar text, which leaves a poor impression in terms of copying over large tracts of its material” (2017, 85).
11
The typical order for the genitive pronoun modifier with the substantive in Revelation is substantive–pronoun, as noted above, with the only other exception being Rev 18.5 (αὐτῆς αἱ ἁμαρτίαι).
12
Karrer lists no less than eighteen variations in wording for Rev 21.3b (not dealing in this list with the initial καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς, thus, only dealing with μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός). 1. μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται; 2. μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔστε; 3. ἔσται μετ’ αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν; 4. ἔσται μετ’ αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ θάνατος; 5. ἔσται μετ’ αὐτῶν; 6. μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός; 7. μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν ὁ θεός; 8. μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται θεός; 9. μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται θεὸς αὐτῶν; 10. ἔσται μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός; 11. ἔσται μετ’ αὐτῶν καὶ θεὸς αὐτῶν; 12. ἔστιν μετ’ αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν; 13. μετ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός; 14. μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται ὁ θεὸς; 15. ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεὸς ἔστιν μετ’ αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν; 16. ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεὸς ἔστιν αὐτῶν θεός; 17. ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν θεὸς ἔσται; 18. μετ’ αὐτῶν καὶ αὐτοί … μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν θεὸς ῶν αὐτῶν. See , 203.
13
As noted above, Sinaiticus itself has καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ἔσται μετ’ αὐτῶν, taken in UBS5 as a minor variation from the other manuscripts in this group.
14
Interestingly, Erasmus’s edition has this third example, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ἔσται μετ᾽ αὐτῶν θεὸς αὐτῶν. However, the only text of Revelation that Erasmus had access to in preparing his first edition was miniscule 2814, which reads like Sinaiticus, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ἔσται μετ᾽ αὐτῶν. Why the additional θεὸς αὐτῶν? Perhaps the Vulgate’s rendition of 21.3b (et ipse Deus cum eis erit eorum Deus) suggested to him the additional θεὸς αὐτῶν. However, if he were to add the phrase in the same order as the Vulgate (eorum Deus = αὐτῶν θεός) there would be two αὐτῶν right next to each other. Consequently, Erasmus may have shifted it after θεός to avoid that problem.
15
16
Second Corinthians 6.16 quotes Lev 26.12.
17
18
The complete quotation in Rev 21.3 begins earlier with ἰδοὺ ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετα τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ σκηνώσει μετ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ αὐτοὶ λαοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσονται. Therefore, the last phrase we are studying is only a portion of the complete sentence joined together by a connective series of occurrences of καί. The different parts of the long sentence can be treated as separate complete sentences on their own.
19
Note the similar modification of “God with us” to “I am with you” in Matt 28.20.
20
I was sitting next to my friend, Larry Hurtado (may he rest in peace), at a session of the Mark Group (Society of Biblical Literature national annual meeting), when a presenter insisted that no one had ever seen before what was being presented. Larry leaned over to me and said, “If no one has seen it in 2,000 years, there’s probably a good reason why.” Thankfully, what I am presenting here does not fall in that category.
21
Revelation 2.1, “The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, the one who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands” (ὁ κρατῶν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ, ὁ περιπατῶν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν τῶν χρυσῶν); 2.8, “The first and the last” (ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος); 2.12, “The one who has the sharp two-edged sword” (ὁ ἔχων τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν δίστομον τὴν ὀξεῖαν); 2.18, “The one who has his eyes like a flame of fire and feet like burnished bronze” (ὁ ἔχων τους ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ ὡς φλόγα πυρὸς καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ); 3.1, “The one who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars” (ὁ ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας); 3.7, “The holy one, the true one, the one who has the key of David, the one who opens and no one shuts and who shuts and no one opens” (ὁ ἅγιος, ὁ ἀληθινός, ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖν Δαυίδ, ὁ ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσει καὶ κλείων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγει); 3.14, “The amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (ὁ ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, ἠ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ). These are all in the nominative case and clearly are names given to Christ in relation to the churches. Note the use of the nominative participle ὁ ἔχων over and over in these verses.
22
See Rev 4.2-3. God is “the one sitting” on the throne (ὁ καθήμενος). In 12.9 Satan is called “the one who deceives the whole world” (ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην). In 14.12 the saints are “those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (οἱ τηροῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν πίστιν Ἰησοῦ). In 19.11 Christ is “the one sitting on it [a white horse] who is called faithful and true” (ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ’ αὐτον [καλούμενος] πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός). The Apocalypse has a major theological emphasis on naming both positive and negative characters. Thus, it is not strange that another name for Christ is “God-with-them” in Rev 21.3b.
Abbreviations
ASV American Standard Version (1901)
CBGM Coherence Based Genealogical Method
DRB Douay–Rheims (NT 1582; OT 1609–1610)
ESV English Standard Version (2001, 2016)
Geneva Geneva Bible (1599)
KJV King James Version (Authorized Version; 1611)
LBLA Biblia de las Américas (1986)
Luther Lutherbibel (1545)
NA Nestle–Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece. Numbers indicate editions: 26th ed. 1979; 27th ed. 1993; 28th ed. 2012.
NAB New American Bible (1970)
NEB New English Bible (1970)
Nestle Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece (17th ed., 1941)
NET NET Bible (New English Translation, 2001, 2005)
NIV New International Version (1978, 2011)
NJB New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
NKJV New King James Version (1982)
NLT New Living Translation (1996)
UBS United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. Numbers indicate editions: 1st ed. 1966; 2nd ed. 1968; 3rd ed. 1975; 3rd corr. ed. 1983; 4th ed. 1993; 5th ed. 2014.
TR Textus Receptus
WH Westcott and Hort 1881 (in References)