The closing book of the New Testament stands less correctly than any other in the received text. Hence there is much more comparatively to be noted in comparing the Revised Version with the Authorized. Happily among critics the agreement is unusually great, as few can justify the Erasmian editions, which he only partially corrected by the help of the Cornplutensian. Hence many errors have been perpetuated through R. Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs, of which no scholar acquainted with the more ancient authorities can doubt the correction. So great has been the effect of better copies (MSS. or Vv.), that perhaps no book in the New Testament now commands more consent among scholars as to its text.
Chapter i. 1 affords an early specimen of rash innovation effected by punctuation, which has not commended itself generally, no not even to Lachmann. It was probably due to the influence of Drs. Westcott and Hurt, who adopt it in their Greek text. Wiclif's is the only English version which preceded them in so strange a view; but J. H. Heinrichs contends for it in the tenth vol. of Koppe's edition, and wrongly, as I cannot but think with Dean Alford. But there can be no doubt that they are justified with almost all critics, and on ample authority, in excluding7c “and” in the closing clause of 2. For the witness of John was the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, but visions seen by him: not consisting of visions in addition to the other two descriptions. He is here, not an apostle only, but emphatically a seer. Such is the character of the book. In 3 there is no need as in the Authorized Version to say “this” and “those,” but “the” in both instances. Some of the ancients and even a pair of cursives (7. 16.) give the demonstrative; but there is no real ground. In 5 the change from “prince” to “ruler” is not much; “loveth” for “loved” is good; “loosed” for “washed” is hazardous, though here Tischendorf too was swayed by the Sinaitic in addition to A C, &c., to give in to Lachmann and Tregelles. The vowel might easily have displaced the diphthong, especially as the rendering is thereby easier, though less akin to the Johannean style. The Greek commentators try to incorporate, both figures. In 6 the Revisers rightly say “a kingdom,” and “the” glory. In 7 they purposely give “the” clouds, but might well have put “land” for earth in the margin. They have also omitted the clause “the beginning and the ending,” brought in from the end of the book, though the Sinaitic, &c. support it here. In 9 they omit “also” of the Authorized Version following the Text. Rec., and “in the” before kingdom, to the great detriment of the force. “Of Jesus Christ” as in the common text cannot stand; but “in Jesus,” though highly supported, is unexampled as to usage, which would seem rather to require “in Christ,” or “in Christ Jesus,” with excellent authority, and in the latter case very large. But “Christ” should disappear from the end of the verse, on the authority of jZ A C P, &c. In 11 a long interpolation after the first word in the common text disappears, and another after “churches.” In 14 “white as white wool” is self-evidently the sense intended; “white like wool” as in the Text Rec. and Authorized Version is not intelligible. It would seem also from iii. 18 that red hot, and so “refined” is meant in 15 also. “And the Living One and I was dead,” opens 18 rightly. “Amen” should vanish, and Hades follow death. In 19 it should be “Write therefore” as is generally known; but why the vague “hereafter,” at the end, and in iv. 1, instead of the more precise “after these things,” which is favored by the context? John was to write (1) the things which he saw, (2) the things which are, and (3) the things which are about to happen after these (i.e., the seven churches as set out in the seven letters of our Lord): not, as Dean Alford so strangely says, the things seen supplemented by what they mean, which would demand Ilya instead of a. In this, however, the Revised Version is right, like the Authorized Version and almost if not all others. In 20 is not our tongue capable of reflecting the anarthrous usage of “angels,” no less than of “seven churches “? If there is a defining genitive in the one case, there is a numeral in the other, which renders the predicate sufficiently definite without the insertion of our article in the one more than in the other.
In ii. 1 of course the Revisers correct “of” to “in” Ephesus, following a better text than the received one. The confusion and addition in 3 are corrected on good authority. “And thou didst bear” shifts from being the first member to the second place, and is connected with “for My name's sake,” “and hast labored” being expelled. In 4 there is rightly the omission of “somewhat,” but why omit “this"? It is better without addition. Still more important is the exclusion of “quickly” from 5 on the authority of jZ A C P, the Vulgate, Memphitic, and 2Ethiopic, though the Basilican Vat. and perhaps all the cursives support it as did the earlier editors. It was an addition of the copyists, perhaps from 16. In 7 it is not in “the midst of” the paradise of God, but “in” it, “my” being probably a gloss.
In 8 the Revisers correct “is alive” to “lived.” In 9 they omit “works and.” In 10 for “none” they have “not,” and “the” (not “a”) crown of life.
In 13 they leave out “thy works and “; but they refer in their margin to the uncertainty of the Greek text in the clause about Antipas; and assuredly, as it stands in the Alexandrian and Parisian or even Sinaitic Uncials, it is hardly translateable. The later Vatican, and many cursives add ars as the Porphyrian and others have Cv at which removes the difficulty. I do not dwell here or generally on the effort to avoid the English perfect indefinite where the aorist occurs in Greek, as it is of such frequent occurrence. In 14 some,” or persons, that hold is better than them that hold; and a similar remark applies to 15, which closes with “in like manner” instead of “which thing I hate,” a mere blunder of some copies. In 15 there is the curious fact of a reading (Eryviv) introduced by Erasmus, whose MS. here failed, without one known witness, followed in the Greek Bible of Aldus (1518), Cephalceus (1524), and by Colinseus (1534); also in the editions of R. Stephens, of Beza, and of the Elzevirs. In the Complutensian it is of course 07Sep' and so in all critidal editions, Gratz following it, but not Goldhagen. Bengel avoided the error. Yet it is remarkable that all the English translations are right in giving “knoweth,” which answers not to E'71,10 which they read, but to o7Sev, a reading which few of them saw, or thought of.
In 19 a bettor text is followed by the Revisers, which the reader may see by comparison. “Service” should follow “faith,” and the closing clause should be “and thy last works [to be] more than the first.” In 20 “a few things” is all wrong, and on slender ground. Indeed X and some cursives give “much,” some others “many things “; but the weight of authority is decisively against any qualifying term here. In 21 the Revisers rightly say “willeth not to repent.” Tyndale misled the English who followed him into the feeble, if not false, “repented not.” In 22 “I cast,” not merely “will,” as it is also “her” works. In 24 “and” if not “unto” also should vanish: an error in the Text Rec. as in the Authorized Version. So the “and” before “which” is spurious. In 26 “authority” is better than “power"; as it should also be “he that” keepeth my works. In 27 the highest witnesses support the present, not future, “are broken to shivers,” and “they” of the Authorized Version and the margin is questionable as the subject, instead of the vessels of pottery as in the Revised Version.
In iii. 2 the Revisers give “was” ready to die, reckoning from the time of strengthening, as “are” would be from the epoch of writing. Further, they omit the article on the testimony of A C an& the margin of the Codex Reuchlini, which Erasmus too followed; but all others are adverse, including NB P and the body of eursives, &c. Hence the Revisers translate “no works of thine.” — “On thee” in 3 after. “come” has very good authority, if not the best. “But” should surely open 4, and “even” retire, both on excellent ground, God. Reuchl. misleading in both. In 5 for “the same” read “thus,” the adverb, not the pronoun.
In 7 there is a measure of uncertainty in the readings, but the sense is only affected in a slight degree. But surely in 8 the latter half gives the reason, “because,” not “that” as the Revisers say, connecting what follows with “I know thy works,” and treating the intervening words as a parenthesis. Also is not “little power” more suitable to the context than “a” little, meaning some? Weakness characterized the Philadelphian assembly, but they kept Christ's word and denied not His name. There seems no change of moment in 8, though a marked literality of rendering in the Revised Version, save that they depart from their usual preterit for the aorist at the close. Nor is there anything to detain in 9. In 10 they, with the critics, reject the opening “Behold” on ample and ancient authority. In 12 I am not aware of any authority for the curious slip here in the Elzevir editions of the New Testament which read Xeuii people, for v., temple.
Of course the error in 14 is corrected, and “in Laodicea” takes its place. In 16 the true order is “hot nor cold.” In 17 there is good authority for repeating the article before “miserable,” which certainly gives marked emphasis; but the chief MSS. omit, which makes the construction regular, as in the Revised Version. There is no doubt the Authorized Version erroneously omits it before “wretched,” —Nothing calls for special notice in 18-22.
In iv. 1 a door “opened” is correct, as in iii. 8. The double “was” of the Authorized Version is not necessary any more than “a voice” of the Revised Version. Compare i. 19 for “hereafter.” The copulative disappears rightly from 2. There is no effort made to distinguish KvadOev from IC2;KX111. Yet distinction it is hard for any one to believe not intended, if one compare 3, 4, 8 with 6, v. 11 in the true text, and vii. 11. Another has suggested “round” for the first, and “around” for the second, which admits more of detached objects surrounding, while the first may apply to connected objects though not exclusively. In 4 the Revisers rightly give “thrones” not “seats,” as in the Authorized Version. But in 6 why a “glassy” sea? Does not baXivl point to the material in the vision, and not to its mere smoothness? “Glassy” answers to imA °et+ or imA.of,Sys. or vaawsr,e. It is the more important, because its force symbolically depends on its true meaning; and those who miss that meaning slip into all sorts of aberrations from the truth intended, as one may see in Elliott's Horse Apoc. and other works. Of course by “living creatures” is justly displaced the strange “beasts,” which, given by Wiclif, survived in all the successive English versions down to the Authorized Bible. In 9 and 10 the future form is correct, not the English present as in the Authorized Version. In 11, “were,” not “are,” is the right word.
In v. 3, “no one” is better than “no man,” as in the older versions. “And to read” in 4 is a gloss. So is “to loose” in 5. In 7 “the book” is not duly authenticated; so that the Revisers rightly supply “ie.” In 8 it is “the” saints. In 9 it is “sing,” not “sung.” But the very material change is the quasi-absolute use of ilftipaeas by the omission of “us,” for which the Revisers substitute “men.” This is not only sustained by A 44, Aeth., but confirmed in the strongest way by the verse following, as we shall see presently. “Purchase” is right, not “redeem.”