Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Revelation 22:14 (New International Version)

14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Revelation 22:14 (King James Version)

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Why do NIV scholars choose wash their robes as a better translation of the Greek?

share|improve this question
    
Interesting question.One can get into a "spiritual confusion" with all the different translations. –  Bagpipes Jul 13 at 12:10

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

The existing answer already gives the essentials. This variation in reading Revelation 22:14 persists across quite a number of modern English translations.

I thought it might help to have a bit of explanation, too, especially if readers have some sense of the textual landscape for the NT. Not for nothing does the introduction to the Nestle-Aland edition point out that

The manuscript tradition for the Book of Revelation differs greatly from that of the other New Testament writings.1

The two textual traditions appear this way:

Rev_22v14

The image is taken from H.B. Swete's The Apocalypse of St. John... (3rd edn; Macmillan, 1911), p. 307.

The top line corresponds to the text adopted by the NIV, the bottom line is the KJV ("Majority") text version, or in the form typically seen in modern editions of the Greek NT:

[οἱ] πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν
      those who wash their robes
 
[οἱ] ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ
      those who do his commandments

How to decide which is the original reading, though? Three considerations (at least) speak in favour of the "robes" rather than "commandments" reading (in descending order of significance):

  • As noted by @fdb, the "oldest" manuscripts have this reading. The textual witnesses to the very difficult text of Revelation are fewer than in other NT books, however.2 The manuscript support for "robes" is in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus (4th and 5th C respectively), and "about 15 minuscles", while the "commandments" reading is in the tenth C 046, most minuscles, and is reflected also in the Syriac* and Coptic tradition.
  • When John of Patmos speaks about "commandments", he uses τηρεῖν "to keep" rather than ποιεῖν "to do", as the KJV version has it. If the "commandments" reading was original, this would be an odd form of the phrase.
  • In the context of 22:12 ("...I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to pay each one according to what he has done!"), scribes might be inclined towards prefering a "moral" sense in v. 14.

* On the Syriac, see fdb's comment following this answer.

Cumulatively, Swete was justified in writing (see reference above) that

Upon the whole, then, πλύνοντες κτλ. ["washing etc."] may with some confidence be preferred; and it yields an admirable sense."


Notes

  1. Various editions of N-A have slightly different wording of this sentence (which appears in "2. The Greek Witnesses" sub "Consistently Cited Witnesses in Revelation"), but make the same point, always citing J. Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes (3 vols; Munich, 1955/56). The discussion of James Moffat in the Expositor's Greek Testament (Hodder & Stoughton, 1897), vol. 5, pp. 281ff. is still well worth a read. His discussion of this precise textual point appears on p. 490, n. 2.
  2. This is the pay-off from the point in n. 1. See on this, Tobias Nicklas, "The Early Text of Revelation", in The Early Text of the New Testament ed. by C.E. Hill and M.J. Kruger (OUP, 2012), pp. 224-237.
share|improve this answer
1  
I have only one remark on David’s excellent discussion: You mention the “Syriac tradition”. Please note that Revelation is not part of the Syriac canon. The version found in printed editions of the Syriac Bible is a modern translation and has no bearing on ancient textual history. –  fdb Mar 16 at 15:52
2  
On the Syriac - almost true! There is a single 12-13 C. ms of Revelation in Syriac: see Sebastian Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Gorgias, 2006), on p. 50. –  Davïd Mar 16 at 16:07
    
Yes, and as Brock says, very likely not part of the Philoxenian translation. –  fdb Mar 16 at 16:27

These are variant readings. The translators of the KJV followed the Textus Receptus of 1550 (οι ποιουντες τας εντολας αυτου). Modern translators follow the oldest manuscripts (οι πλυνοντες τας στολας αυτων).

Reference: Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica major, Vol. II 1872, Rev. 22:14.

share|improve this answer
1  
the other answer shows the level of effort we expect in answers here. This falls short. Showing your work takes work. –  Daи Mar 16 at 17:39

Your Answer

 
discard

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.