Revelation 16:5: Does KJV Add Words?

[InTheLight]

Rev. 16:5(b)

“You are just in these judgments, O Holy One, you who are and who were; [NIV]

Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. [KJV]

Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and Holy, because thou hast judged these things. [Geneva]

“Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; [NASB]

 

[Van]

You are just, Lord, the one being and the one that was and the one that shall be because you judge.

You are righteous, the one being and the one that was, the Holy One because you judged these things.

The two versions above are my effort present the two variants (TR and CT) of the last part of the verse. Since the WEB does not include the future phrase, it looks like a possible problem of the TR. The other difference that pops is Holy One rather than Lord.

 

[Logos1560]

Rev. 16:5(b)

Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. [KJV]

Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and Holy, because thou hast judged these things. [Geneva]]

The preserved Greek NT manuscript copies and the early editions of the Textus Receptus had a Greek word for Holy or Holy One in their text.

Theodore Beza is said to have introduced a conjecture into one or more of his later TR editions, and it is from Beza's text that the KJV gets its reading "and shalt be".

 

[Logos1560]

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation referred to “the conjectural reading of Beza’s last three editions” at Revelation 16:5 (Vol. IV, p. 463). James White agreed with Edward Hills that Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation, a change “made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts” (King James Only, first edition, p. 63). White claimed: “Every Greek text--not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition--reads ‘O Holy One,‘ containing the Greek phrase ‘ho hosios’” (second edition, p. 237). William W. Combs maintained that “Beza simply speculated (guessed)” in introducing this reading (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156). J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he asserted that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389). In 1844, Samuel Tregelles maintained that the reading adopted by Beza at Revelation 16:5 “is not found in any known MS” (Book of Revelation in Greek, p. xxxv). Jonathan Stonis asserted that Theodore Beza “modified the Traditional Text against manuscript evidence by dropping the words, ’Holy One’ and replacing them with ’to be’” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 60).

The earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be“ at this verse. Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.”

Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326). In his 1776 Exposition of this book, John Gill wrote: “The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read holy instead of shalt be; for the purity and holiness of Christ will be seen in the judgments which he will exercise” (p. 183).

 

[Deacon]

Here's a book I stumbled across recently that might interest Logos1560:

The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament: The Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament [Amazon]
by Irena Backus

I've got it on a prepublication wait list for Logos Bible Software for less than $2 - probably be a year or more before it's released.

Rob

 

[Greektim]

The question of the OP was asked poorly.

Not "does" but "did".

And not "add" but "change".

Did the KJV change a word in Rev. 16:5?

Answer:

 

[Logos1560]

Here's a book I stumbled across recently that might interest Logos1560:

The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament: The Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament [Amazon]
by Irena Backus

Rob

I have a printed copy of Backus' book The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament and have read it. This book mentions and discusses examples of Beza's influence on the English synoptic gospels and on the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.

It does not discuss any examples in the book of Revelation.

 

[preachinjesus]

Revelation 16:5: Does KJV Add Words?

Yes.

Its one of several spots in Revelation where Erasmus, in crafting his version of the Greek NT, borrowed from non-Greek sources to back translate his text and provide some kind of rendering.

Critical Text:
Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,

Textus Receptus:
καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας·

There are 11 places where the TR and CT vary. The TR has been shown to be wrong in all the renderings. Here the TR disagrees with the MT and the CT.

 

[Van]

Lets see, when we think the KJV corrupted the text, we call it conjectural emendation, but when the NIV alters the message we call it functional non-equivalence.

I assume the 11 places where the TR differs from the CT refers to Revelation, with one verse being Rev 16:5. Can anyone list the other 10 verses?

 

[Rippon]

when the NIV alters the message we call it functional non-equivalence.

Wrong pronoun. You are the only one making that absurd claim.
The NIV does not alter the message. But I can give plenty of examples where you have indeed altered the message with your wretched renderings. I have decided to make a thread on that very subject in the very near future.

I assume the 11 places where the TR differs from the CT refers to Revelation, with one verse being Rev 16:5. Can anyone list the other 10 verses?

The last six verses of Revelation are instances where Erasmus used the Vulgate and turned it into Greek as he didn't have access to a Greek text.

 

[Rippon]

According to Dr. Wallace there are 1,005 translatable differences between the Received Text and the Majority Text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I understand the overwhelming textual evidence, but am I the only one who finds the Critical text rather odd in Rev. 6:5?

Critical Text:
Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,

Textus Receptus:
καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας·

First of all, the words, 'who was and is.' There are three other places in Revelation where these words appear (1:4, 8; 4:8) and all of them add, 'and is to come.'
Secondly, the C.T. has no Vocative- no one is addressed. The NIV, NASB and ESB supply one. 'Just are you, O Holy One, who was and is.....' (ESV), but it's not there in the Greek. ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος is all nominative. A literal translation would read, Just are you [and] the One who is and was [and] the holy One, that You judge these things.' I am ready to be corrected by those who are better at Greek than I am, but it reads very oddly indeed to me.

I don't know where one goes with that. I'm just saying.

 

[Greektim]

I understand the overwhelming textual evidence, but am I the only one who finds the Critical text rather odd in Rev. 6:5?

First of all, the words, 'who was and is.' There are three other places in Revelation where these words appear (1:4, 8; 4:8) and all of them add, 'and is to come.'
Secondly, the C.T. has no Vocative- no one is addressed. The NIV, NASB and ESB supply one. 'Just are you, O Holy One, who was and is.....' (ESV), but it's not there in the Greek. ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος is all nominative. A literal translation would read, Just are you [and] the One who is and was [and] the holy One, that You judge these things.' I am ready to be corrected by those who are better at Greek than I am, but it reads very oddly indeed to me.

I don't know where one goes with that. I'm just saying.

Let's clean this up and correct it.

1) Your first line of evidence is one of the main reasons why this is clearly conjectural emmandation. It makes better sense that a textual critic would change it to "and is to come" in order to match with other readings. Not to mention that, the Mss support aside, it is clearly the harder to reading to have "the holy one" since it seems out of step with other places in Rev. That lends even greater probative internal evidence that "the holy one" is correct.

2) Careful w/ the word "vocative" since it is a formal word for Greek grammar. The vocative case is rarely used in the NT. And the "lord" vocative is distinctive only to the TR. In other words, it has no Mss support either. Next, the ESV does not create a vocative b/c Koine at this time started adapting the nominative for the vocative (which explains why rarity of the vocative in the NT). See Wallace's grammar pp. 56–59, "A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the focative case. It is used (as is the vocative) in the direct address to designate the addressee.". Therefore it is the ESV and modern translations that are the only ones that have the addressee ("the Holy One") correctly whereas the TR/KJV had to insert one "lord" b/c of their emmendation from the addressee "holy one" to "who is to come".

 

[Van]

Apparently no one knows or is willing to share the 10 other verses in Revelation where the TR is bogus. If the message is altered by conjectural emendation then the verse provided functional non-equivalence.

 

[Greektim]

Apparently no one knows or is willing to share the 10 other verses in Revelation where the TR is bogus. If the message is altered by conjectural emendation then the verse provided functional non-equivalence.

Or I'll just say what probably most everyone else is thinking...

WHO CARES! This thread is about Rev 16:5, not the other 10 passages that you want it to be about.

So do you have anything helpful or substantive to add to this discussion, particularly of my assessment to MM that I provided in a recent post???

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Let's clean this up and correct it.

1) Your first line of evidence is one of the main reasons why this is clearly conjectural emmandation. It makes better sense that a textual critic would change it to "and is to come" in order to match with other readings. Not to mention that, the Mss support aside, it is clearly the harder to reading to have "the holy one" since it seems out of step with other places in Rev. That lends even greater probative internal evidence that "the holy one" is correct.

This is something that I was taught in my secular Greek studies: that the more unlikely and ridiculous a reading is, the more probable it is that it's correct. I found it hard to believe when dealing with Homer and Thucydides. I find it even harder when dealing with the word of God. Generally speaking, I find it far more likely that some hapless scribe accidently missed the words out.

2) Careful w/ the word "vocative" since it is a formal word for Greek grammar. The vocative case is rarely used in the NT. And the "lord" vocative is distinctive only to the TR. In other words, it has no Mss support either. Next, the ESV does not create a vocative b/c Koine at this time started adapting the nominative for the vocative (which explains why rarity of the vocative in the NT). See Wallace's grammar pp. 56–59, "A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the focative case. It is used (as is the vocative) in the direct address to designate the addressee.". Therefore it is the ESV and modern translations that are the only ones that have the addressee ("the Holy One") correctly whereas the TR/KJV had to insert one "lord" b/c of their emmendation from the addressee "holy one" to "who is to come".

My knowledge of Greek (such as it is) comes originally from my study of the Classics at University 40-odd years ago. I have mugged up on Koine Greek, but I am quite prepared to be corrected by those who know better.

However, a quick trawl through the use of the word 'Lord' kurios, reveals its pretty constant use in the vocative kurie. Check out for example, Matt. 16:22; 17:4, 15. 21; Mark 7:28. Even in Acts 4:24, the word is despota, vocative again. Can you show me (just for my own education) a few other places where the nominative is used in place of the vocative? Thanks!

 

[Greektim]

This is something that I was taught in my secular Greek studies: that the more unlikely and ridiculous a reading is, the more probable it is that it's correct. I found it hard to believe when dealing with Homer and Thucydides. I find it even harder when dealing with the word of God. Generally speaking, I find it far more likely that some hapless scribe accidently missed the words out.


My knowledge of Greek (such as it is) comes originally from my study of the Classics at University 40-odd years ago. I have mugged up on Koine Greek, but I am quite prepared to be corrected by those who know better.

However, a quick trawl through the use of the word 'Lord' kurios, reveals its pretty constant use in the vocative kurie. Check out for example, Matt. 16:22; 17:4, 15. 21; Mark 7:28. Even in Acts 4:24, the word is despota, vocative again. Can you show me (just for my own education) a few other places where the nominative is used in place of the vocative? Thanks!

Concerning the "harder reading" criterion, that is really not at issue here. The external Mss evidence is what trumps the discussion.

I will list some places where the nominative of address is used. These come from Wallace's grammar.

Jn 17:5
Matt 16:7
Rev 1:13
Mk 9:19
Gal 3:1
Lk 8:54
Jn 19:3
Eph 5:22
Jn 20:28
Heb 1:8

Here's a good one w/ both a vocative and a nominative of direct address: Rev 15:3

Wallace says of this, "The reason the nominative came to be used for the vocative was due to formal overlap." As the case of all language... it moves to simplicity.

Now as for "lord", what I think you missed is that it is an insertion into the text by the TR. It has no Mss support either. So that is really not the issue, except that it corrected the error you were perceiving. When the TR made the emendation to "who is to come" there was a need for an addressee. So they inserted "lord" to clean it up. The TR makes 2 blunders here, both of which have zero Ms support.

 

[Van]

There are 11 places where the TR and CT vary. The TR has been shown to be wrong in all the renderings. Here the TR disagrees with the MT and the CT.

Can anyone list the remaining 10 verses of conjectural emanation?

 

[preachinjesus]

Apologies, I've had other things to do since I posted yesterday at 3:58 PM that were more pressing than a BB reply.

Lets see, when we think the KJV corrupted the text, we call it conjectural emendation, but when the NIV alters the message we call it functional non-equivalence.

No, you're saying (contrary to scholarly opinion) that the NIV "adds" something to the text, others (myself specifically) have said that the translation of that term (I don't remember which passage) naturally produces qualifying language that is part of the proper translation of that term. What we're talking about here is an entirely different issue.

I assume the 11 places where the TR differs from the CT refers to Revelation, with one verse being Rev 16:5. Can anyone list the other 10 verses?

Sure:

1:8

CT:
Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.
TR:
Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος, λέγει ὁ Κύριος, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.

1:11

CT:
λεγούσης· ὃ βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον καὶ πέμψον ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις, εἰς Ἔφεσον καὶ εἰς Σμύρναν καὶ εἰς Πέργαμον καὶ εἰς Θυάτειρα καὶ εἰς Σάρδεις καὶ εἰς Φιλαδέλφειαν καὶ εἰς Λαοδίκειαν.
TR:
λεγούσης, Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος· καί, Ὃ βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον, καὶ πέμψον ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν Ἀσίᾳ, εἰς Ἔφεσον, καὶ εἰς Σμύρναν, καὶ εἰς Πέργαμον, καὶ εἰς Θυάτειρα, καὶ εἰς Σάρδεις, καὶ εἰς Φιλαδέλφειαν, καὶ εἰς Λαοδίκειαν.

2:20

CT:
ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι ἀφεῖς τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζάβελ, ἡ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς ἐμοὺς δούλους πορνεῦσαι καὶ φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα.
TR:
ἀλλ᾿ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα ὅτι ἐᾷς τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζαβήλ, τὴν λέγουσαν ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν, διδάσκειν καὶ πλανᾶσθαι ἐμοὺς δούλους πορνεῦσαι καὶ εἰδωλόθυτα φαγεῖν.

4:2f

CT:
Εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι, καὶ ἰδοὺ θρόνος ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος, 3 καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι καὶ σαρδίῳ, καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ.
TR:
καὶ εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι· καὶ ἰδού, θρόνος ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καθήμενος· 3 καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἦν ὅμοιος ὁράσει λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι καὶ σαρδίνῳ· καὶ ἶρις κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὁμοία ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ.

5:14

CT:
καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα ἔλεγον· ἀμήν. καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν καὶ προσεκύνησαν.
TR:
καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῶα ἔλεγον, Ἀμήν. καὶ οἱ εἰκοσιτέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν καὶ προσεκύνησαν ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

8:7

CT:
Καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἐσάλπισεν· καὶ ἐγένετο χάλαζα καὶ πῦρ μεμιγμένα ἐν αἵματι καὶ ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς κατεκάη καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν δένδρων κατεκάη καὶ πᾶς χόρτος χλωρὸς κατεκάη.
TR:
Καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισε, καὶ ἐγένετο χάλαζα καὶ πῦρ μεμιγμένα αἵματι, καὶ ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν γῆν· καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν δένδρων κατεκάη, καὶ πᾶς χόρτος χλωρὸς κατεκάη.

11:17

CT:
λέγοντες· εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐβασίλευσας.
TR:
λέγοντες, Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην, καὶ ἐβασίλευσας.

14:5

CT:
καὶ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν οὐχ εὑρέθη ψεῦδος, ἄμωμοί εἰσιν.
TR:
καὶ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν οὐχ εὑρέθη δόλος· ἄμωμοι γάρ εἰσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ.

16:5

CT:
Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,
TR:
καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας·

21:24

CT:
καὶ περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς, καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς φέρουσιν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν εἰς αὐτήν,
TR:
καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τῶν σωζομένων ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτῆς περιπατήσουσι· καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς φέρουσι τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν αὐτῶν εἰς αὐτήν.

22:14

CT:
Μακάριοι οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν.
TR:
μακάριοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν.

22:19

CT:
καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.
TR:
καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφαιρήσει ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

Hope this advances the conversation.

TO ADD: I was going to try to fancy this up but something is screwy with BB edit feature and my Safari browser still. Also, for reference my CT is the UBS4 along with the standard TR.

 

[Jerome]

it is from Beza's text that the KJV gets its reading "and shalt be".

Its one of several spots in Revelation where Erasmus, in crafting his version of the Greek NT, borrowed from non-Greek sources to back translate his text and provide some kind of rendering.

So was it Erasmus or Beza?