i. 4. ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ... ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ. In the space indicated by the dots Erasmus has ἅ ἐστιν, Codex 36 has ἅ εἰσιν, Q and C have ἃ, which is adopted by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, א and A have τῶν, which is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and by Westcott and Hort in their margin, while Codex 80 has nothing at all. All these variants are explainable on the supposition that the original reading was τὰ. Exception being taken to this construction, one copyist made it τῶν, the other ἃ, the third supplied the copula, and the fourth dropped the offending word altogether. Similarly, in chap. v. 13, א alone has preserved the correct reading τὸ, for which the others have ὃ or ὅ ἐστιν. Another case is ii. 13, where the writer wished to say, “in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was slain.” According to the idiom mentioned above, while Ἀντίπα was in the genitive, ὁ μάρτυς would be in the nominative of apposition. But owing to the influence of this nominative, Ἀντίπα was made nominative so as to agree with it, and the sentence then ran, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἀντίπας ὁ μάρτυς μου ... ὃς ... which could not be construed. The consequence was corrections of all sorts. The boldest expedient was simply to drop the ὃς, but other means were adopted to relieve the construction. After ἡμέραις some inserted αἷς or ἐν αἷς, Erasmus read ἐμαῖς, א has ἐν ταῖς, and some Latin witnesses _illis_. But read Ἀντίπα in the genitive and all is in order.[293] The Apocalypse presents quite a number of passages enabling us to distinguish the manuscripts. There is very little difference in form between λύσαντι and λούσαντι (i. 5), ἀετοῦ and ἀγγέλου (viii. 13), λίθον and λίνον (xv. 6), but it makes a great difference whether we read “who redeemed us” or “who washed us,” an “eagle flying” or “an angel flying,” “wearing pure linen” or “wearing pure stone.” These variations are the result of _accidental_ errors in transcription. But we meet an instance of _intentional_ alteration in xiii. 18, where the number of the beast is variously given as 666 and 616. Grouping the witnesses for the former variants we have— i. 5. λύσαντι, א A C, Syriac,[294] Armenian. λούσαντι, Q P, Vulgate, Coptic, Ethiopic. viii. 13. ἀετοῦ, א A Q, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic. ἀγγέλου, P, Armenian. The two readings are combined not only by certain commentators, but in some manuscripts, ἀγγέλου ὡς ἀετοῦ. xv. 6. λίθον καθαρόν, A C, am fu demid tol. λίνον καθαρόν, P, Syriac, Armenian, Clementine-Vulgate. λινοῦν καθαρόν is read by Q, and καθαροὺς λίνους by א.