Revelation 3:14-16 - Quirks in Sinaiticus

          Although Codex Sinaiticus has been hailed as “The World’s Oldest Bible” and was one of the two Alexandrian manuscripts very heavily favored by textual critics of the 1900s, fans of both the traditional text and modern compilations agree that its text of Revelation is not very good.  Despite the stern warning in chapter 22 against changing the words of the book, the scribe of Sinaiticus made numerous changes, including two interesting ones in Jesus’ address to the Laodicean church in chapter three.

          Let’s compare Revelation 3:14-16 in À with the same passage in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform and the Nestle-Aland NTG compilation.

Byz:  Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον, Τάδε λέγει ὁ Ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ· Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε ζεστός· ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἦς ἢ ζεστός.  Οὕτως ὅτι χλιαρὸς εἶ, καὶ οὔ ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός, μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου.

NA: Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον· Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ· οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε ζεστός. ὄφελον ψυχρὸς ἦς ἢ ζεστός. οὕτως ὅτι χλιαρὸς εἶ καὶ οὔτε ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός, μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου.

À:   Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον· Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀμήν καὶ ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θῦ· οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς οὔτε ζεστός. ὄφελος ψυχρὸς ἦς ἢ ζεστός. οὕτως ὅτι χλιερὸς εἶ καὶ οὔτε ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός, εἶ παυσε  τοῦ στόματός σου.

          Setting aside mere orthographic differences, the most interesting variants here in À are the reading (n v.14) ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ (instead of  κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ) and (in v. 16) εἶ παυσει  τοῦ στόματός σου (instead of μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου).

          How did such readings – unique to Sinaiticus – originate?  Let’s take them one at a time.  It’s conceivable that ἐκκλησίας was in the scribe’s mind because the word occurred a few lines previously in the text in verse 13, at the beginning of a line (as it does here in v. 14), and he repeated the word carelessly.  But another theory, proposed by Juan Hernández Jr. on p. 111 of Codex Sinaiticus:  An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?, is that the scribe who invented this variant had a theological motive.  Hernández wrote:

    Juan Hernandez Jr. (Bethel University)

           “The first Christological reading to surface is in Revelation 3:14.  The title of the risen Christ, ‘the beginning of the creation of God,” κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, is altered to the ‘beginning of the church of God, ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ.  The change eliminates the possibility of placing Jesus within the created order and is conspicuous against the backdrop of the fourth century, defined as it was by its pitched theological battles over the precise nature of the Son. . . . The eradication of such language in Codex Sinaiticus appears to indicate that the wording was a problem,  The title of Revelation 3:14 was thus harmonized to the title of Colossians 1:18, where Jesus is the head of the church (κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας).”

            A dogmatic motive might be argued in the opposite direction:   if the expression “ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ” were construed to mean that Jesus was distinct from creation, an Arian scribe wishing to perceive Jesus as merely the first created entity, appointed by the Father to rule the rest of creation, could introduce church of God in place of creation of God in order to convey simply that he was the founder of the church.   

            In the same essay (p. 112), Hernández shares some thoughts on the singular variant in 3:16, calling it “one of the boldest textual changes to the portrait of Jesus in the Apocalypse.”  He writes, “Instead of vomiting the Laodiceans out of his mouth, μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου, the text of Sinaiticus reads that Jesus was ‘to stop their mouth(s)’ παῦσει τοῦ στόματός σου. . . . “Passages that refer to Jesus eating, sleeping, being angry, or struggling at Gethsemane posed a serious theological problem and were the subject of rigorous debate.  Presumably a passage where Jesus threatens to vomit would have been just as problematic, supplying a possible rationale for the change here.”  This is conceivable but merely conceivable – an alternative is that the scribe wished to arbitrarily change Jesus’ vivid language into his own wish to quiet mediocre believers.  In either case he was very reckless.