Revelation 16:5: Does KJV Add Words?

[Greektim]

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.

Not to continue to derail here...

But you are wrong, Van. The only reason I'm responding is to see if you will own it.

Rev 4:2 Byz:
καὶ εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι· καὶ ἰδοὺ θρόνος ἔκειτο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος
Rev 4:2 TR:
και ευθεως εγενομην εν πνευματι και ιδου θρονος εκειτο εν τω ουρανω και επι του θρονου καθημενος

The difference is between the accusative (Byz) and the genitive (TR)

The other error is actually 22:15 not 14. Not sure who to blame on that one.

ἔξω οἱ κύνες καὶ οἱ φαρμακοὶ καὶ οἱ πόρνοι καὶ οἱ φονεῖς καὶ οἱ εἰδωλολάτραι καὶ πᾶς φιλῶν καὶ ποιῶν ψεῦδος.
εξω δε οι κυνες και οι φαρμακοι και οι πορνοι και οι φονεις και οι ειδωλολατραι και πας ο φιλων και ποιων ψευδος

 

[Van]

I do not believe a difference in word form qualifies as a conjectural emendation (Rev 4:2). I do see a slight difference, with "one sat on the throne" verses "one sitting (or seated) on the throne."

But sure enough, at Rev. 22:15 I see where the TR has a conjunction (but, yet, for) which does not appear in the MT. While seemingly a nit pick, it still is an added word, a conjectural emendation.

 

[InTheLight]

Not to continue to derail here...

But you are wrong, Van. The only reason I'm responding is to see if you will own it.

As the OP, I say go for it. Carry on.

 

[John of Japan]

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".

I don't know where you get that the vocative is rare in the NT. A quick search has the vocative of "Lord" occurring 123 times in the TR (though of course not that often in the other texts).

Other than that, your post is on target.

 

[Greektim]

I don't know where you get that the vocative is rare in the NT. A quick search has the vocative of "Lord" occurring 123 times in the TR (though of course not that often in the other texts).

Other than that, your post is on target.

Rare in comparison to the other 4 noun cases. I believe Wallace has it as less than 1%.

 

[Van]

If we applied the same metric used to find "conjectural emendation" in the Revelation verses identified to the NIV, including changes in word form, close to a majority of verses could be considered corruptions (conjectural emendations.)

For example, Revelation 1:11 starts with "saying" but the NIV has "which said." Thus a change in word form.

If we find fault with others we should apply the same metric to ourselves, including our translations of choice.

 

[John of Japan]

Rare in comparison to the other 4 noun cases. I believe Wallace has it as less than 1%.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Note: The vocative would naturally be more rare than the other cases because it is only used in direct address.

 

[Greektim]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Note: The vocative would naturally be more rare than the other cases because it is only be used in direct address.

And even more so since it was going out of style in NT times, being replaced by nominatives.

 

[John of Japan]

And even more so since it was going out of style in NT times, being replaced by nominatives.

Seems like I heard from my son recently that modern Greek doesn't have a vocative but uses the nominative, like you say.

But about the vocative κύριε, a scholar friend wrote me that the vocative is not the least frequent form. Here are his stats:

KURIOS occurrences in NT = 717 (NA27); 747 (Byz)
Singular forms only = 703 (NA27); 733 (Byz)

Of the singular forms:

KURIOU genitive = 240 (NA27, 34%); 254 (Byz, 34%)
KURIOS nominative = 177 (NA27, 25%); 181 (Byz, 25%)
KURIOS vocative = 119 (NA27, 17%); 125 (Byz, 17%)
KURIW dative = 99 (NA27, 14%); 104 (Byz, 14%)
KURION accusative = 68 (NA27, 10%); 69 (Byz, 9%)

So for this word (singulars only) the vocative beats out both the dative and accusative.