Featured The KJV's Rev. 16:5

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards F. 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). Edward F. Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

This early KJV-only author acknowledges a fact that many KJV-only advocates seem to try to deny or avoid.

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). James 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” Revelation 16:5. 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.” E. W. 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).

One poster seems to think incorrectly that Strong's Concordance provides evidence concerning Greek NT manuscripts when it does not.

 

There are some words in the Kjv that correspond to no know Greek textual source, as we just do not know where they came in from, while others came in from latin Vulgate, was that translation also "inspired?"

 

my 1615 Geneva bible has " ...Which art, and Which wast, and holy..."

 

Revelation 16:5, ". . . And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, [O Lord,] which art, and wast, [and shalt be], because thou hast judged thus. . . ."

"O Lord" is unique to the TR used for the KJV. 100% omit.
"and shalt be" is unique to the TR used for the KJV.
"Holy" 100% of Revelation manuscripts.

 

And I herde an angell saye: lorde which arte and wast / thou arte ryghteous & holy / because thou hast gevēn soche iudgmentes

William Tyndale 1534 Revelation 16:5.

The Newe Testament dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke by Willyam Tindale, and fynesshed in the yere of our Lorde God A.M.D. & xxxiiij. in the moneth of Nouember.

 

'According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza.'

Not according to Beza. You might want to research it further.

Dr. Jeff Riddle and Larry Brigdon (Greek and Latin scholar) for the Trinitarian Bible Society translate Beza's own words that he had an ancient manuscript 'of good faith.'

Nick Sayers also wrote an entire book on the evidence for the KJV reading which is consistent with the context.

Boyce & White claim a conjectural emendation at Revelation 16:5 but it's from an ancient manuscript - Bing video

 

What manuscript?

 

We would have to ask Beza, I do not think he specified which one. However, the point is that Beza made the claim he had a reliable manuscript and also the 'kai' in the Greek of P47 says "and" as in 'and shalt be.'

Critics also overlook the evidence of a 1549 Ethiopic (Geez) Bible proving Theodore Beza was not the first to have “and shalt be” in Rev16:5!

 

Righty so, nevertheless, Beza himself never claimed any ""conjectural emendation" and said himself he had a reliable manuscript, that is the point of your thread.

There are also 2 pre-10th century Latin witnesses that favor the KJV reading of ‘and shalt be’ so it is not like the phrase just popped out of Beza's head.

 

P47 has "and Holy" not "and shalt be." The better reading is "the Holy." My note of 100% on that reading was not correct. It is a divided majority. There are some of the "Majority" which omit both readings, "Holy" or "the Holy." I misread the reference I had used.

 

I did not say p47 says 'and shalt be.' I said p47 has 'and' as in 'and shalt be' and is consistent with the context of the whole of Revelation.

Nick Sayers wrote a whole book on Rev 16:5, the evidence is out there for the KJV reading being correct if anyone wants to study both sides of the argument.

Revelation 16.5 and the Triadic Declaration.pdf (textus-receptus.com)

The P47 variation reads ‘kai’ or ‘and.’ “And” what? “And the holy one”? Really? Beza has pointed out that in the manuscript for the Latin Vulgate, the text was “foolish and divisional” because of the “and” but the same issue occurs here in P47.

 

From what I have found, there is no Greek for "shall be." in Revelation 16:5. My electronic copy of the TR has the adjective οσιος or the verb εσομενος which is only used the one time in Revelation 16:5.

Further checking, I found my electronic TR gave the wrong word definition for the verb εσομενος. My electronic LXX found that verb used the one time in Job 15:14 and it means "shall be."

 

The Trinitarian Bible Society is not objective, and it has published some inaccurate and misleading claims. Do you assume that Jeff Riddle and Larry Brigdon are perfect in their translating ability?

Perhaps you should research it further since you may not have considered all the information and possibilities. Beza often replied upon the incomplete and imperfect collation (book of collations) done by Stephanus' eighteen year old son. Stephanus and Beza sometimes suggested that they had done something that they had not done since they may have forgotten that they were often actually relying on the incomplete and imperfect collating done by Stephanus' son instead of on their own personal collating.

Francis Huyshe (1768-1839) says [British Magazine (1834)] that Beza discovered the Rev. 16:5 reading in his book of collations (which was Stephanus' son's collations). A book of collations would not actually be a manuscript although it was supposed to contain readings from manuscripts. Perhaps an incorrect note by Stephanus' son suggested that there was supposedly a manuscript when there may not have been one. The actual manuscripts collated by Stephanus' son are not known to have the reading claimed by Beza so if Stephanus' son's book of collations gave that reading as being in one of them it was a mistake. If the unidentified and unnamed claimed ancient manuscript was in Latin, it should not be regarded as trustworthy and authoritative enough for emending the Greek. If a manuscript existed and was in Latin, it would still be accurate to call that reading a textual conjecture of the Greek.

One manuscript would not outrank and overrule the great majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts.

 

The reading εσομενος "shalt be" in a TR. Not found in any other Greek texts on Revelation 16:5 that I can find. That PDF did not provide any.

 

Nevertheless, Beza still claimed himself to have used an ancient reliable manuscript. Those are his words not mine.

 

Actually, the Old Latin (2nd century) precedes Jerome's Latin Vulgate by several hundred years.