Journal of Confessional Bibliology — Scripture Alone, Preserved by Providence
Confessional Bibliology Article

“No Greek Manuscript”? Steele’s Revelation Ledger Re-examined

By Chris ThomasPublished August 22, 2026Revised July 28, 202619 min readConfessional Bibliology, Current Controversies and Quick Refutations, The Greek Manuscripts Do Not Matter? Stephen Steele, the TBS, and the Duty to Speak Truth
“No Greek Manuscript”? Steele’s Revelation Ledger Re-examined

Part III: The Readings and the Public Accusation · Article 2 of 3

Stephen Steele’s accusation rises or falls upon particulars. It is not enough to observe that Scrivener’s text agrees with the Authorized Version. It is not enough to find a Received Text reading with little surviving manuscript support. Steele must prove his causal claim: that agreement with the KJV is what governs the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Greek text.

The Revelation examples are the strongest part of his case because the book’s printed history contains genuine anomalies. They are also where his language most often outruns the evidence.

H. C. Hoskier’s two-volume Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse is indispensable here. Hoskier collated the Greek witnesses available to him against Stephanus’s 1550 edition and recorded versions, commentaries, and patristic evidence. His work does not vindicate every Received Text reading. It distinguishes independent manuscripts from handwritten copies influenced by printed editions, and it sometimes condemns readings that entered the received print.1

A current apparatus adds witnesses unknown or unavailable to Hoskier. Direct manuscript transcripts can settle points that later summaries obscure. When these sources are placed beside Erasmus, Beza, and Steele’s exact wording, the ledger refuses a single slogan.

Passage Classification
Mixed: “beginning and ending” is attested; omitting “God” is exceptionally weak
, “O Lord” Directly attested in GA 2344
, “shall be” No extant Greek witness known; Beza reports a lost manuscript
Transmitted Greek minority; “throne” is dominant
Likely Latin-influenced; no independent pre-print Greek support established
Received-print error on present evidence
Pre-Erasmian Greek attestation, probably derived from commentary

The table gives the result. The evidence behind it shows why method matters.

Revelation 1:8: Two Questions, Not One

The Authorized Version reads:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩

Two principal variation units must be kept apart.

The words “the beginning and the ending,” ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος, have direct Greek support. The first hand of Codex Sinaiticus and a group of minuscules contain the words, as do ancient versions and ecclesiastical writers. The Received Text is not alone or dependent upon the English at this point.2

The title that follows is a different matter. The dominant Greek reading is “saith the Lord God,” λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός. The Received Text omits “God” and reads “saith the Lord.” Hoskier lists two exceptions to the fuller reading, his manuscripts 141 and 187, but he later groups those witnesses with manuscript 57 as handwritten copies connected with the printed text and says that they “must not be accorded any weight whatsoever.”3 A present apparatus reports versional support for the shorter title but no sound independent Greek witness to the exact Received Text wording.

Steele therefore has a substantial textual criticism. “Lord God” possesses overwhelming Greek evidence, and the omission may be an early printing mistake. TBS should not classify the restoration of “God” as though modern versions had deliberately subtracted a divine title from sound Greek.

His absolute statement still needs qualification. It is not literally true that no handwritten Greek witness omits “God”; Hoskier records two. They are simply derivative and text-critically worthless. More importantly, support for “the beginning and the ending” cannot be transferred to the omission of “God.” Each unit stands on its own.

The fair verdict is:

The omission of “God” at is a weak Received Text reading with no established independent pre-TR Greek support. Steele’s textual criticism is substantially correct, although his “zero Greek manuscripts” formula ignores print-derived handwritten witnesses and his treatment of the verse can blur a separately attested phrase.

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩

This is evidence of an inherited bad reading. It is not evidence that the KJV caused it; Erasmus’s Greek omission preceded the AV.

Revelation 16:5: Steele Combined Two Variants

Steele writes that Erasmus inserted “Lord” from the Vulgate, that the word was absent from Erasmus’s manuscript and “any other manuscript,” and that Beza later made a conjectural emendation. He then concludes: “The Greek manuscripts do not matter to the TBS.”4

The sentence treats the AV’s wording as one block:

“Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be.”

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩

It contains two distinct questions:

  1. Is κύριε, “O Lord,” part of the text?
  2. Is ὁ ἐσόμενος, “who shall be,” the correct final title?

The evidence is different for each.

“O Lord” Has Direct Greek Support

Erasmus’s working manuscript did not contain κύριε. Delitzsch is right about that immediate source. Hoskier knew only the word’s presence in his manuscripts 57 and 141, both of which are tied to printed editions and cannot provide independent evidence.

But the official transcript of the eleventh-century minuscule GA 2344 reads:

δίκαιος εἶ κε· ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν· ὁ ὅσιος

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩

The abbreviation κε is the nomen sacrum for κύριε. In English, the line begins, “Righteous art thou, O Lord.” GA 2344 is an independent medieval Greek witness, not a handwritten copy of a sixteenth-century printed text.5

It does not read Beza’s ὁ ἐσόμενος. It continues with ὁ ὅσιος, “the Holy One.” Nor does its existence prove that Erasmus consulted it. Erasmus may still have obtained “Lord” from Latin.

It proves a narrower and decisive fact:

Steele’s assertion that “O Lord” appears in no other manuscript is false.

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, ,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩

The source of Erasmus’s own reading and the reading’s Greek attestation are not the same question. Steele answers the first and then treats it as though it answered the second.

“Shall Be” Has a Different Record

No presently identified extant Greek manuscript is known to read Beza’s exact ὁ ἐσόμενος, “who shall be,” at . That fact must be stated without evasion.

It does not follow that no such manuscript existed in Beza’s lifetime.

Beza’s 1598 annotation says:

Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui: nempe ὁ ἐσόμενος.

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, ,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩

That is:

“Therefore I cannot doubt that the genuine reading is the one I restored from an old, trustworthy manuscript codex, namely ὁ ἐσόμενος.”6

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, ,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩
  6. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum (Geneva, 1598), annotation on , https://www.e-rara.ch/i3f/v20/2026240/full/1800,/0/default.jpg. ↩

Beza did not present the phrase as a free conjecture. He presented it as a restoration from a manuscript. The claimed codex is now unidentified and unavailable. We cannot inspect it, confirm that Beza reported it accurately, or measure its value. A scholar may propose that Beza confused an earlier marginal judgment with a manuscript memory. That remains a historical reconstruction, not proof that the codex never existed.

Hoskier also records a future expression in non-Greek witnesses. His Ethiopic evidence has “who wast and shalt be,” and Beatus has qui fuisti et futurus es, “who wast and art to be.” These do not supply an extant Greek manuscript for ὁ ἐσόμενος. They do show that a future title was not born solely in Beza’s imagination.7

The correct verdict preserves both limitations:

No presently identified extant Greek manuscript reads the exact ὁ ἐσόμενος. Beza expressly testified that he restored it from an old, trustworthy manuscript, and earlier versional or commentary evidence preserves a future sense. His claimed codex cannot now be verified; its historical nonexistence has not been proved.

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, ,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩
  6. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum (Geneva, 1598), annotation on , https://www.e-rara.ch/i3f/v20/2026240/full/1800,/0/default.jpg. ↩
  7. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:419. ↩

Calling the reading “conjectural” without addressing Beza’s first-person testimony is materially incomplete. Calling it securely established by a surviving Greek manuscript would be equally false.

Revelation 20:12: A Minority Greek Reading

The Authorized Version says that the dead stood “before God.” Most Greek manuscripts read “before the throne.” TBS has accused modern versions of obscuring Christ’s divine glory by substituting an impersonal throne for the name of God.

Steele is right to object to that rhetoric.

“Throne” is the dominant Greek reading. It is not an attack upon Christ, and it is not doctrinally deficient. Revelation repeatedly presents the divine throne as the place of judgment. If John wrote θρόνου, no publisher has the right to condemn his word as an obscuring substitution.

But “God,” θεοῦ, is not manuscriptless. Hoskier’s apparatus lists Greek witnesses for θεοῦ and another set for the expanded θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ, “the throne of God.” A current apparatus reports fifteen minuscules for “God” and eight for the expanded form.8 The numbers may change as transcripts are refined, but the category does not: “God” is a directly transmitted Greek minority reading.

Steele uses to show that TBS does not employ numerical majority as an absolute rule. That conclusion is correct and already conceded. It does not establish that the Society secretly employs the KJV as its rule. A confessional received-text position can retain a minority reading on grounds other than manuscript counting. The defense may succeed or fail, but it is not disproved merely by showing that the reading is a minority.

The local verdict is:

“Throne” is overwhelmingly supported and should not be charged with doctrinal corruption. “God” is nevertheless an attested Greek reading, not a word created from the KJV.

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, ,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩
  6. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum (Geneva, 1598), annotation on , https://www.e-rara.ch/i3f/v20/2026240/full/1800,/0/default.jpg. ↩
  7. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:419. ↩
  8. Ibid., 2:564; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus at . ↩

Steele identifies an inconsistency in TBS’s popular rhetoric, not a proof of English textual supremacy.

Revelation 21:2: A Strong Criticism

The Received Text and AV begin the verse, “And I John saw the holy city.” The dominant Greek text begins simply, “And I saw.”

Hoskier reports ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης only in his manuscripts 57 and 141. Those are the print-related copies he refuses to grant weight. More recent lists sometimes name manuscripts 296 and 2049, but these too are sixteenth-century witnesses deeply entangled with the printed Received Text. They do not establish an independent pre-print Greek line.9

The wording agrees with late Latin forms. Erasmus’s own manuscript did not contain it. On present evidence, Latin influence is the most economical explanation.

This is one of Steele’s strongest examples. It should not be padded with remote possibilities or defended merely because the AV contains it.

The conclusion remains local:

Independent Greek manuscript support for “I John” at has not been established. The reading likely entered Erasmus’s Greek through Latin influence and was inherited by later editions.

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, ,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩
  6. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum (Geneva, 1598), annotation on , https://www.e-rara.ch/i3f/v20/2026240/full/1800,/0/default.jpg. ↩
  7. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:419. ↩
  8. Ibid., 2:564; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus at . ↩
  9. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:572; 1:615; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus and endnote at . ↩

Again, the historical order prevents Steele’s causal claim. The reading entered Greek print before the KJV. Its retention in Scrivener follows the AV’s historical basis, but its origin was not an English back-translation.

Revelation 21:14: The Third “Twelve”

The dominant Greek text says that the wall had twelve foundations and upon them “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” The Received Text omits the third δώδεκα, “twelve,” before “apostles.”

Hoskier’s apparatus displays overwhelming support for the third occurrence. Erasmus’s exemplar contained it. The Vulgate contained it. No plausible majority-text argument supports the received omission.10

Steele is right about the textual fact. The omission is a genuine defect in the printed tradition. It may have arisen because the repeated number seemed redundant, through a transcriptional lapse, or through editorial intervention. The precise psychology is less secure than the evidence for the word.

This example should teach restraint on both sides. TBS should not defend an indefensible omission. Steele should not treat the omission as proof that the KJV rules the Greek, since the Greek error again predates the AV.

Revelation 21:24: Commentary and Greek Attestation

The AV reads, “And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it.” The words τῶν σωζομένων, “of them which are saved,” are absent from the dominant text. Hoskier agreed that Erasmus confused the biblical text with words from the Andreas commentary.

That likely origin should be admitted.

It is not the whole history. Hoskier examined a manuscript he numbered 251, now GA 254, a fourteenth-century Greek codex with commentary. At it places both clauses in the biblical text, written in the color used for text rather than commentary. Hoskier therefore says there can be no doubt about how that scribe classified the words.11

A current apparatus lists GA 254, 2028, 2186, 2814, and 2917 for the clause, with a related form in 2049. At least one Greek manuscript therefore incorporated the words into its biblical text before Erasmus.12

This does not prove that John wrote them. The distribution itself is consistent with a commentary gloss entering the text. Manuscript attestation and originality are not identical. A reading can be genuinely transmitted and secondarily derived.

It does correct an absolute claim:

is not without Greek manuscript attestation, and its appearance as biblical text predates Erasmus. Its probable origin in commentary remains a serious reason to reject it.

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, ,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩
  6. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum (Geneva, 1598), annotation on , https://www.e-rara.ch/i3f/v20/2026240/full/1800,/0/default.jpg. ↩
  7. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:419. ↩
  8. Ibid., 2:564; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus at . ↩
  9. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:572; 1:615; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus and endnote at . ↩
  10. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:595. ↩
  11. Ibid., 1:747–48. The reference sometimes printed as volume 2, page 748 is a volume error; the discussion occurs in volume 1. ↩
  12. Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus and endnote at ; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 254,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA254″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA254. ↩

Steele cites Hoskier’s explanation but not the full evidence Hoskier records. The result is a history that is directionally right about the gloss and too simple about the transmission.

What the Ledger Establishes

These readings do not belong in one undifferentiated list of “Erasmian inventions.”

is a genuine received-print error. is probably Latin-influenced and lacks established independent Greek support. presents a weak omission of “God” alongside a separately attested phrase. is a transmitted Greek minority reading. probably came from commentary but stood in Greek biblical text before Erasmus. contains direct Greek support for “O Lord” and disputed historical testimony for the exact “shall be.”

Steele’s strongest criticism is that TBS publications sometimes turn local textual decisions into accusations of doctrinal corruption. He is right. A reading is not impious because it differs from the AV. A majority reading cannot be denounced as an attack on Christ merely because TBS retains a minority.

His principal conclusion remains unproved. The examples do not show one mechanism. Several readings originated before the KJV. Some have direct Greek support. Some are errors. Some are inherited from Latin or commentary. Correlation with the AV cannot carry the causal load.

The verdict is therefore mixed in its details and clear in its result:

Steele found real weaknesses in the Received Text of Revelation and serious overstatement in TBS publications. He also made absolute manuscript claims that the evidence contradicts, separated neither variation units nor classes of witnesses consistently, and described Beza’s ὁ ἐσόμενος as conjectural without confronting Beza’s express manuscript testimony. His passage ledger does not prove that the KJV is TBS’s final authority.

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at , https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, ,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩
  6. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum (Geneva, 1598), annotation on , https://www.e-rara.ch/i3f/v20/2026240/full/1800,/0/default.jpg. ↩
  7. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:419. ↩
  8. Ibid., 2:564; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus at Revelation 20:12. ↩
  9. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:572; 1:615; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus and endnote at Revelation 21:2. ↩
  10. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:595. ↩
  11. Ibid., 1:747–48. The reference sometimes printed as volume 2, page 748 is a volume error; the discussion occurs in volume 1. ↩
  12. Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus and endnote at Revelation 21:24; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 254,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA254″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA254. ↩

The last article turns from the textual record to the public record. Steele was told before publishing this series that the men he described did not hold the view he assigned to them. He then repeated the accusation without engaging TBS’s formal statement that final appeal belongs to the original languages. The issue is no longer whether a critic may identify errors. He may and should. The issue is what truth requires after a public accusation has itself been shown false or unproved.

Notes

Bibliography

Beza, Theodore. Novum Testamentum. Geneva, 1598.

Delitzsch, Franz. Handschriftliche Funde. 2 vols. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1861–62.

Hoskier, H. C. Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse. 2 vols. London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929.

Palmer, David Robert. The Revelation of John, Greek and English. July 14, 2026 ed.

Steele, Stephen. “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch.” Gentle Reformation. June 29, 2026.

Trinitarian Bible Society. “Sound Words: Appendix 1—Significant Textual Variants.”

  1. H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/. ↩
  2. David Robert Palmer, The Revelation of John, Greek and English, July 14, 2026 ed., apparatus at Revelation 1:8, https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf. ↩
  3. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:36; 1:615. Hoskier’s numbers are his own Apocalypse sigla, not modern Gregory–Aland numbers. ↩
  4. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
  5. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, “GA 2344, Revelation 16:5,” NTVMR transcript, https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=32344&format=html&pageID=1210&userName=Apokalypse+Edition; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 2344,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA2344. ↩
  6. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum (Geneva, 1598), annotation on Revelation 16:5, 550, https://www.e-rara.ch/i3f/v20/2026240/full/1800,/0/default.jpg. ↩
  7. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:419. ↩
  8. Ibid., 2:564; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus at Revelation 20:12. ↩
  9. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:572; 1:615; Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus and endnote at Revelation 21:2. ↩
  10. Hoskier, Text of the Apocalypse, 2:595. ↩
  11. Ibid., 1:747–48. The reference sometimes printed as volume 2, page 748 is a volume error; the discussion occurs in volume 1. ↩
  12. Palmer, Revelation of John, apparatus and endnote at Revelation 21:24; Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, “GA 254,” <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA254″>https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA254. ↩
Discussion

Comments

Share a question or response to this article.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.