Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Augustin delighted in viewing the church's bishops sitting on thrones, therefore announcing the Millennium as having begun already. After history this view seems hard to maintain. The thousand years now appear - even if future - as squeezed in where no demand is. Many assign it to the Israel as a kind of parallel kingdom to the one supposed to remain where it is said to come from.

This half verse is badly supported by manuscript evidence. Against his own apparatus (indicating omission from Sinaiticus to Syriac, from koine's majority to several early commentaries) the Nestle-Aland critical edition keeps it in its main text. Why?

share|improve this question

In order to answer such a question, we must first put away our theological preferences, whether pre-, post-, or amillennial. Only then can we objectively consider the textual evidence:

According to the NA-28 apparatus, the first half of the verse is missing in codex Sinaiticus, the byzantine manuscripts, and to a few much less significant manuscripts. Therefore the first half of the verse is present in all early papyri except one. Though codex Sinaiticus weighs heavily when it agrees with codex Vaticanus, that is not the case here. Besides, though Sinaiticus is considered an reliable text in the gospels and Acts, it is of notoriously poor quality in Revelation: several papyri and even some miniscules are considered better witnesses to Revelation. Thus, unless one considers the majority text a better witness than the early manuscripts (since even the Textus Receptus includes v5a), one is forced to conclude that the passage is most likely original. No internal evidence disagrees, as far as I know

But I don't think Rev 20:5a does any serious damage to any eschatology: what v5a says is already clear from the context, so I don't think anyone of any theology would benefit from removing it.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.