Revelation 16:5: Does KJV Add Words?

[preachinjesus]

So was it Erasmus or Beza?

My TR base is the Textus Receptus from the Stephanus' 1550 printing which utilizes Erasmus' compilation of the text. Beza's text was not published until 1565. The KJV translators didn't have access to Beza's text in the first edition.

The historical statement I made about Erasmus back-translating from other, non-Greek sources is well documented. You can read a helpful post about it and see Dan Wallace's discussion, here.

 

[Van]

Rev. 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, [the Beginning and the End] says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Rev. 1:11 saying,[ “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and] “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

Rev. 2:20 [Nevertheless] I have [a few things] against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, [to teach and seduce should be "she teaches and seduces"] My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

Rev. 4:2 - If there is a corruption here, it seems very slight when viewed as translated.

Rev. 5:14 Then the four living creatures said, “Amen!” And the [twenty-four] elders fell down and worshiped [Him who lives forever and ever.]

Rev. 8:7 The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. [TR omits "One third of the earth was burnt up] And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.

Rev. 17 saying: “We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was [and who is to come] Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.

Rev. 14:5 And in their mouth was found no [deceit should falsehood] for they are without fault [before the throne of God.]

Rev. 21:24 And the nations [of those who are saved] shall walk in its light and the kings of the earth bring their glory [and honor] into it.

Rev. 22:14 reads like the Majority Text, so I see no TR corruption.

Rev. 22:19 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the [Book of Life should be Tree of Life] from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[preachinjesus]

Oh, my apologies, I didn't realize folks were okay adding words to the inspired Greek and Hebrew of the original authors.

Carry on.

 

[Jerome]

My TR base is the Textus Receptus from the Stephanus' 1550 printing which utilizes Erasmus' compilation of the text. Beza's text was not published until 1565. The KJV translators didn't have access to Beza's text in the first edition.

Huh? Here is Stephanus 1550:

http://www.bibles-online.net/1550/

 

[preachinjesus]

Huh? Here is Stephanus 1550:

http://www.bibles-online.net/1550/

Curious, the text I was using via my Accordance program provided me that citation. So I went and checked the actual, original Textus Receptus from Erasmus and found the text of his first version. I also checked a few other copies available online and found discrepancies between the Accordance version I have and their original textual basis. This is from Erasmus' first edition of the TR:




http://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/pageview/896129

The rendering here is different from what I have in my software, perhaps the edition is in error. Let me check around and see what is going on here. I spot checked a couple of the others from the list I created previously and they are checking out, I'll dig in further.

This might be a one off issue, but it is worth hunting down. A worthwhile pursuit to be sure.

 

[Greektim]

Especially when you put out so much $$$ for a high end program that is found to be WRONG!

 

[Greektim]

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.

I was hoping to get a response from MM on this post. Anything, brother?

 

[preachinjesus]

Especially when you put out so much $$$ for a high end program that is found to be WRONG!

lol, well, the TR text was about $25 and included in the base package I purchased. The more interesting issue is if this error is replicated across multiple platforms and in their broader work.

 

[Van]

Still waiting for an explanation of the claimed corruption at Rev. 4:2 and 22:14. Anyone care to respond?

 

[preachinjesus]

I don't believe anyone is speaking about "corruption" in this thread other than yourself, Van.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

I agree, but I still find the text puzzling

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.

There are plenty of places where the vocative is still used, but thank you for these; my education continues.

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.

I didn't miss it. I looked to see where else hagios is used as a form of address to God anywhere in the NT, and it isn't. I then looked at kurios, which of course is used shed-loads of times, and found that the vocative is used in the vast majority of cases.

However, as a good Majority/Byzantine Text adherent, I accept the MS evidence and that's an end to it. My views on the textual question can be found here:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/critical-text-or-traditional-text/

 

[Van]

Still waiting for an explanation of the claimed corruption (conjectural emendation) at Rev. 4:2 and 22:14. Anyone care to respond?

 

[Greektim]

Still waiting for an explanation of the claimed corruption at Rev. 4:2 and 22:14. Anyone care to respond?

How about starting a thread dedicated to those passages; I'd be glad to respond then.

 

[Van]

Still waiting for an explanation of the claimed corruption (conjectural emendation) at Rev. 4:2 and 22:14. Anyone care to respond?

 

[Rippon]

I accept the MS evidence and that's an end to it.

I accept the MS evidence and don't hold to your Byz. position.

My views on the textual question can be found here:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/critical-text-or-traditional-text/

You made some good points and a number of errors. But I will just correct you on the spelling of a word. It's not "tortology" but tautology.

 

[Rippon]

(conjectural emanation)

It's not "emanation" but emendation. I have emendated your error.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's not "emanation" but emendation. I have emendated your error.

I think you emended the error, or possibly amended it. There is no verb to 'emendate.'

 

[Van]

Lots of "change the subject" posts but it appears the claim that the TR differed from the Majority Text at Revelation 4:2 and 22:14 was in error.

 

[Greektim]

I didn't miss it. I looked to see where else hagios is used as a form of address to God anywhere in the NT, and it isn't. I then looked at kurios, which of course is used shed-loads of times, and found that the vocative is used in the vast majority of cases.

Did you happen to search the LXX? Considering the saturation of the OT in Rev, and if the LXX made use of this wording, then you might expect to see it in Rev.

For example:
Ps 71:22 I will also praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praises to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.
Psa 71:22 (70:22) καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν σκεύει ψαλμοῦ τὴν ἀλή θειάν σου, ὁ θεός· ψαλῶ σοι ἐν κιθάρᾳ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Ισραηλ.

God is referred to often as "the Holy One of Israel" frequently. So it is not as rare of an occurrence as one might think.

 

[Van]

Thanks for pointing out my spelling errors, but conjectural alterations to improve the text remain corruptions and constitute functional non-equivalence. Revelation has at least 10 verses where the TR differs from the Majority Text, including Revelation 16:5, and excluding Revelation 4:2 and 22:14.