Thanks, Matthew. The CNTTS was never to stand on it's own, I guess. Wonder if there are any plans to include lectionaries, the fathers, or versions besides the Latin in the future?
Sadly, I don't have answers for any of these questions, despite their importance. However, I suspect that the apparatus will incorporate more Greek manuscripts before any of the other types of witnesses, because the others will require much more work. A critical edition of the lectionary text has never been completed, and a comprehensive analysis of patristic quotations is hampered by a lack of manpower and a huge amount of data (at least 500,000 quotations, according to some estimates). Analysis of the versions is limited because so few scholars possess the necessary language skills. However, work is progressing on a new edition of the Old Latin version, and I would expect to see those results incorporated into future critical editions and tools like the CNTTS.
And for the reminder to look beyond just the Greek mss, though they do carry more weight than the lectionaries, fathers, and versions.
While I agree that this is usually the case, I don't think I would accept it as absolute rule... perhaps because I'm not sure there are absolute rules in textual criticism! ;-) Occasionally the patristic evidence suggests that the state of the manuscript tradition in the early church was much different than it is today... for example, Jerome's comment that "nearly all Greek books" lack the "Long Ending" of Mark when only a few do so today. In my opinion, the patristic evidence is often overlooked or undervalued, and versional evidence frequently suffers the same fate. With this in mind, I would encourage the reader to carefully weigh all of the external and internal evidence for each variant before reaching a decision (and Accordance provides an incredible set of tools that allow the reader to do so). Of course, this is my own method of choice... I understand that others may wish to go a different route!
Both Metzer's and Comfort's commentaries strongly support the NA27 reading. I'm going to have to bow to the experts, here. Have you had a look at NA28 yet?
I would agree with Metzger and Comfort here. In addition to the possibility of "those who wash their robes" as the more difficult reading or the reading that best explains the others (common guidelines in textual criticism), it's important to note that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus share this reading. Since these two manuscripts are generally regarded as witnesses to different forms of the text of Revelation, their combined support is very weighty. Among the minuscules, 1006 and 2050 have also been identified as witnesses to an early form of the text, so their support adds even more weight. However, as you've pointed out elsewhere, it's helpful to have CNTTS, since it cites more manuscripts individually; using the N-A apparatus alone we wouldn't be able to see that 1854, which has also been identified as a witness to the early form of the text, supports the variant.
I haven't seen N-A 28 yet; I'm waiting for an electronic edition. However, I expect that this reading would remain unchanged in the new edition.
And I can't help wondering what made Ephraem think that his treatises/commentaries were of more value than a manuscript of the Bible.
Ephraem didn't do this himself; the manuscript was scraped and rewritten with his discourses around the twelfth century, centuries after his death. You raise an interesting question, though, especially since pandects (manuscripts containing both the Old and New Testaments) seem to have been very rare!