The “rainbow” in x. 1 is right, but of no great weight; nor the omission of “foot” in 2, nor “the” seven thunders in 3, nor “their mime” in 4, nor “right” hand in 5. Why in 3 have the Revisers suppressed “own"? They might have left the reason or measure of emphasis to the expositor. But it is surprising that the Revisers should perpetuate in their text so gross a misrendering as “time” in 6. The natural inference from that word is that eternity immediately succeeds to the sounding of the seventh trumpet; whereas it is certain from the book that a millennium and more must intervene after the seventh angel's blast before the great white throne and the new heavens and earth (i.e. the eternal state.) The marginal correction “delay” should have been in the text, meaning in this connection not time but lapse of time or space as in vi. 11. They have, however, well rendered the Hebraistic cast of 7, “then is finished” &c., where “would have been” is more according to usual phraseology; and so in fact the Greek stands in the Text. Rec. as reflecting the Basilican Vatican and some eight cursives, several ancient versions, &c., but surely rather the correction of a copyist than the original text. The Revisers in 8 try to make regular another of the anomalous forms of the Apocalypse by inserting “I heard it.” But why in some cases when it is clearly impossible in all? It seems better to translate freely in all these peculiar forms, which the received text, following the later scribes, has also essayed to present according to regular grammar; whereas it is clear that they were written intentionally in their ruggedness, the writer knowing well how to express himself in correct Greek. And why should the Revisers have departed from the “little” book of their predecessors? No doubt Griesbach, Lachmann, Alford, and Tregelles support them, following A C 6.14; but P, a few cursives &c., agree with the Erasmian and received reading, and the Compl. is only another form of the diminutive (as in 2) with B, the body of cursives, &c. This difference is not unimportant, but meant expressly in contradistinction from chap. x. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9. The verses that follow (9, 10) in chap. x. support the diminutive. It must be remembered, too, that “book” is wrongly given for “little” book by B, and some 35 cursives in 2, and that X and others read it in 9 and with still more support in 10, where all critics adhere to the dim. as the Authorized and Revised Versions do. No doubt the infinitive is a better text than the imperative, as in the Text Rec. of 9, as it is also the best attested. In 10 “when” displaces “as soon as.” In 11 “they say” is, according to both numerous and the most ancient copies, instead of Veyri in the Text. Rec.—wrongly translated he “said” with some of the Latins. And is not prophesy “over” a singular rendering? Granted that “before” as in the Authorized Version, and Tyndale's “among,” and Wiclif's “to,” are unusual with the dative. “As to” or “concerning” is more suitable. The Revisers say “of,” not “over,” in John 12:16, and quite rightly; they seem inconsistent and pedantic here.
In xi. 1 the Revisers have rightly struck out the interpolation “the angel stood, saying.” But here again they try to soften the singularity of the construction by their rendering of VTop “and one said.” The Bishop of Lincoln's comment allegorizes the reed, speaking as Andreas in the Catena does in another way. Surely the margin is better than the weaker text in 2. With 3 compare the remark on viii. 3. In the critical text of 4 we have another sort of irregularity, when in the same clause appears formal and rational concord; and the Revisers attempt no reflection of it. “Lord” of the earth is right according to ample and ancient witnesses.—
In 5 desireth,” or “willeth,” is better than the ambiguous “will” of the Authorized Version; but “shall” desire rests on slight evidence (X A. 38).—
In 6 may or “Shall” desire is right. In 8 why should it not be “their body, or carcass [shall be] on,” &c? Of course the Revisers rightly say “their” Lord.—9 is not ill translated though wordily: “And from among the peoples do men.” &c. “And some,” or “men,” or “they,” as in the A. V. is more compact. In 10 “rejoice” without “shall” stands on full authority (save 38), and so the Complutensian edition, but not so “make merry,” though in the best copies, still less “send,” where even the Revisers give the future with A C, &c. In 11 it should be “the” three; but why “the” breath of life?
That “beheld” or “beholding” is right. In 12 the Revisers adhere to “they” heard, as in the Authorized Version. But there is no inconsiderable testimony to “I heard.” “The” cloud is the correction of simple mistranslation. In 13 “that,” not “the same.” —In 15 it should be either “that” of our Lord, or “of our Lord &c. is come.” Notoriously the plural form as in the Text. Rec. and the Authorized Version is the mistake of a few cursives. In 16 “sit,” not “sat.” In 17 “which,” or “who,” “wast” (without “and art to come",) stand on good authority. They change “hast reigned” of the Authorized Version into “didst reign.” In 18 “came” and several other minute changes are adopted. The Revisers are right of course in separating 19, as indeed it is the introduction to the vision that follows, rather than the conclusion of chapter xi. Probably “that is” (L) is right, as later critics think on good authority, though the omission of the article in rj B and most cursives, &c. must make it doubtful. “Testament” is all wrong, and everywhere save in Heb. 9:16, 17, as already noticed.