In Which translation for Revelation 5:10 is correct?, this answer gives a helpful explanation of which readings appear in which manuscripts. I don't doubt the author's correctness! But I am struggling to reconcile the answer with my understanding of the critical notes in my Nestle-Aland (sadly the 27th edition, which is what I was given when I got to university 11 years ago!).

For this verse, the reading ημας is

ημας pc gig vgcl sa; Prim Bea ¦ – Hipp

My reading is that this means the reading is supported by a few (=pauci) texts of the Majority tradition, including the Codex Gigas, the Vulgate Clementina, the Sahidic text and quotations in Primasius and Beatus of Liebana, along with Hippolytus. (Though I'm unsure of what ¦ and – represent.)

The answer in the other question says that the Majority text also has this reading, but I can't work out how. I can only guess that it is somehow included in pc, but this doesn't seem obvious to me.

Can anyone decode this for me? Is the Majority Text included in pc? Or is there something else I have missed that gives the reading of the Majority Text?

  • You probably need to reword this question. I gave and answer then deleted it because I realized from reading your question that you already now what "pc" stands for.
    – Perry Webb
    Nov 17, 2018 at 15:47
  • @PerryWebb I have expanded my question slightly. Nov 17, 2018 at 16:25
  • Is there a reason for the special interest in this textual variation?
    – user25930
    Nov 18, 2018 at 10:03
  • @DrPeterMcGowan I saw something in the textual apparatus that I didn't understand. Just seeking to expand my understanding. Nov 18, 2018 at 12:34

3 Answers 3


I believe the following answers your question:

pc From Latin pauci, meaning "a few." Used to note that the listed reading has support from a handful of other manuscripts (seemingly not more than about 5% of the total tradition).


Here's Metzger's commentary:

 5:10      αὐτούς {A}

The third person pronoun, which is overwhelmingly supported, was replaced by ἡμᾶς in several versional and patristic witnesses, followed by the Textus Receptus.

Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 666). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

Here are some majority texts:

και εποιησας ημας τω θεω ημων βασιλεις και ιερεις και βασιλευσομεν επι της γης

Robinson, M. (2002). Elzevir Textus Receptus (1624): with morphology (Re 5:10). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

και εποιησας αυτους τω θεω ημων βασιλεις και ιερεις και βασιλευσουσιν επι της γης

Pierpont, W. G., & Robinson, M. A. (1995). The New Testament in the original Greek: According to the Byzantine/Majority textform (Re 5:10). Roswell, GA: The Original Word Publishers.

και εποιησας ημας τω θεω ημων βασιλεις και ιερεις και βασιλευσομεν επι της γης

Stephen’s 1550 Textus Receptus: with morphology. (2002). (Re 5:10). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Here's how NA27 indicates the Majority Text:

enter image description here


  • Does this mean that there's nothing in that part of the critical apparatus to say that it's in the Majority Text? Nov 17, 2018 at 18:01

Let us be clear here. According to UBS5 the only texts that have "us" are a few texts, none of them Greek. Let me list them all in detail.

  • An "Itala" MSS, "ar 61" (according to the Beuron catalogue, currently in Dublin dated to the 9th century.
  • An "Itala" MSS "gig 51" (Codex Gigas) from the 13th century held at Stockholm
  • The Clementine Vulgate
  • Coptic "sa" (Sahidic) text
  • Coptic "bo" (Bohairic) text
  • Varimadum (Latin) 445-480
  • Fulgenyius (Latin) about 533
  • Primasius (Latin) after 552
  • Beatus (Latin) about 789

Thus, there are no Greek sources listed for this reading of "us". More specifically:

  • Majority text by Farstad, Hodges, et al, lists "them" but lists "us" as a variation in the Textus Receptus.
  • The Byzantine text by Robinson and Pierpont (2005) lists "them". Further, this edition lists no variants within the Byzantine tradition of texts.
  • F35 by W Pickering (2015 2nd ed) also lists no variation except for the Textus Receptus.

Thus, the only variation in the text appears to be in the Latin tradition and not in the Greek tradition.

Therefore, the "pc" from NA27 (same Bible text as UBS4 and UBS5 and NA28) as quoted above is a few Latin MSS and two Coptic MSS - listed above.



pc >>> pauci: a few manuscripts, other than those explicitly mentioned for a given reading, which differ from the Majority text.

¦ >>> A broken vertical line separates the various alternative readings from each other within a single instance of variation.

+ – >>> These signs are used in place of add. [adds] and om. [omits] where such brevity is not inconsistent with clarity.

  • I was hoping for something more than a quotation from the introduction... Nov 17, 2018 at 15:35
  • @lonesomeday—Please see this post. Nov 19, 2018 at 6:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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