Revised New Testament: Revelation 12-14
• 12 min. read • grade level: 7
In xii. 1 “sign” as in the old margin takes the place of “wonder,” as in 3. The Authorized Version should have been consistent with its own rendering in xv. 1. Tyndale ought not to have departed from Wiclif in this. The order of the Greek also is better kept in the Revised Version, as will appear from comparing 1 and 3; but there is no great reason for dropping “appeared” here after adopting it almost everywhere else in the Now Testament. No doubt the Authorized Version had preceded them in giving “was seen,” in xi. 19, and so they might have given in xii. 1 and 3, as both give in Acts 13:3131And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. (Acts 13:31), and 1 Tim. 3:1616And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16). Generally both give “appeared.” Further, “arrayed” and “clothed” are interchanged as in the Authorized Version, though the Revisers use the former. In 2 the Committee adopt a view of the text, in the insertion of an additional copulative, on the authority of C. 95, apparently confirmed by some of the Latin copies, more extreme than most, including Tischendorf, till the Sinaitic carried him away. Lachmann, in his lesser edition, followed the Alexandrian in having the copulative before c:$6. In 3 “diadems” is right, as in Wiclif and the Rhemish, not “crowns” as in the Authorized Version, &c. “ Drew” in 4 is an error, not of text but of translation in all the English versions from Wiclif down to the Authorized Version. All the English versions, the Revised included, have “stood” for “standeth.” It was Tyndale who misled the early translators in giving “as soon as it was born,” instead of Wiclif's more correct “when she had borne a child” or “been delivered” as in the Revised Version. In 5 all the previous translations avoid the simple “a son, a man child,” as in the Revision; as all give “was to” or “should” rule, and omit “the” nations. The better text would give the last “to” in Roman letters, not italics as in the Authorized Version. In 6 the replaced eicel of the old Manuscripts makes a scarce sensible difference save perhaps in emphasis FIebraistically. In 7 the anomalous construction To D “went to war,” or “going forth to war with,” is unquestionably genuine. The received reading evoNc!ptirrav is that of no known copy, and probably a mere guess of Erasmus from Arethas or the context. God. Reuchlini and the Complutensians give T0i) v.-9 is now accurately rendered by the Revisers in the main; and so yet more plainly 10. In 11 it cannot be as in the Authorized Version “by,” but “because of,” d,5 TO, nor their “lives unto the” death. In 12 it is “woe to the earth and to the sea,” not to “the inhabiters of,” as in the Text. Rec. from Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini or 1. The Complutensiau editors are right so far. But the Revisers follow the older form as in t.j A C P and a few cursives, and hence say, “woe for,” &c. At the end of the verse it is not mere lapse of time, which would be xp4vo R., but Kat pdv or season. Erasmus' manuscript of Reuchlin had the article like A C P and many cursives. It seems the more strange that he omitted it like K. B, and most without comment. In 15 the Revisers have not improved on the Authorized Version. They might easily have done so by closing the verse with “by a river,” instead of “the stream.” They are right in giving “of Jesus” in 17, omitting “Christ,” which has only inferior Latin support. The oldest and even the most numerous juniors do not give “Christ.” The Sinaitic and the Canonici?.4 in the Bodleian (98) strangely read Oco;). It is a pretty bold step of the Revisers to decide the question of what follows, and put what commonly stands at the beginning of chapter xiii. in the close of chapter xii., adopting “he,” (not “I") stood, without a marginal note. No doubt there is good and ancient authority for this departure from the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version; but excellent judges decide for the common text, and in such circumstances change without a word of caution seems hazardous.
In xiii. 1 the Revisers follow authority in “horns” and heads as against the Vulgate and Arm. Erasmus probably had no other ground for the erroneous order of the Text. Rec. than, besides these, the fact of Codex Reuchlini; having omitted by inadvertence Ke'pc/Ta ccKe Ica". They try to represent 47r/ Ti2,1, IC. by “on,” and er; TAr K. by “upon.” The received reading, answering to “name” in the Authorized Version, is not without good support (C P, several cursives, ancient versions, &c.); but the plural form has yet more, and was the first printed reading in the Complutensian edition. There are critical questions in 2, but they do not claim attention here as the Revisers raise none in text or translation, save in their change from “seat” to “throne.” In 3 they rightly print I saw in italics, in accordance with the Complutensian edition; whereas the Reuchlin copy gave no authority to Erasmus, who ventured to insert ciZov, probably following; Latin copies (and not the best). I am unaware of any cursive save the valuable Parham 17(95) which roads the word; but it was only brought from Mount i Athos in 1837. 4a0. is not “wounded,” as in the Authorized Version, nor yet “smitten,” as in the Revised Version, but “slain,” as in both margins; but “death-stroke” well renders 7rX.. TOi; 9. In 4 the true reading is 7/1., r OTI re., certainly not the Erasmian conjecture TUP S. or ea. as the Reuchlin MS. fails here. B and many cursives, however, had Tti; 1sS.; Probably the Rotterdam scholar translated the Vulgate here, and so forgot the article before i'•ovat'ai, following. There is an omission in the Text. Rec. followed by the Authorized. Version of Kat before the second TA', which the Revisers of course supply. as amply justified. In 5, there is considerable discrepancy as to px.., but the ordinary text has the most ancient and best witnesses, though Lachmann adopted one shade of difference, and Tischendorf in his seventh edition another. But surely Trot paal here is more than “continue,” and means (as Dan. viii. 24; xi. 28, 0, 32 may illustrate) to do, act, work, practice, or pursue his course for 42 months. 7raeduov is a mere gloss from 7, though in B and most (as the Sinaltic has i OAce), and followed, in the Complutensian and Elzevir editions, not in Erasmus, R. Ste, phens, &c. The Armenian version, &c., cut the knot by dropping the infinitive altogether. In 6 too the plural has higher authority than the singular pa.. But the chief change is the discarding on good ground of “and” before the last clause; especially if with Alford we take it as in apposition with God's name and dwelling-place. The Revisers, it seems, regard it as exegetic of the dwelling-place only. In 7 must be added “and people.” In 8 it is certainly name,” emphatically singular, and indeed needing some means of expressing this, like “everyone” in! the Revised Version, or “whose name soever,” as Mr. T. S. Green proposes. Whether Dean Afford's reasoning influenced the Revisers is best known to themselves; but it is impossible to admit the soundness of bringing forward 1 Peter 1:19, 2019But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (1 Peter 1:19‑20) as the same thing with our passage, for it expressly speaks of Christ foreknown before the world was founded but manifested before the end of the times. Here there is no question of Christ purposed, but of the name having been written from the world's foundation in the book of the Lamb that has been slain. To say that Rev. 17:88The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. (Revelation 17:8) is cited irrelevantly here is surely idle. Christ's death is nowhere said to have taken place in divine counsels; it was foreknown, but took place in time. The Lord does the things known from of old, but they are nowhere said to have been done then. Is then the Authorized or Revised Version happy? It seems to be equivocal, if not misleading. A comma before “from” would have guarded the truth. The marginal note gives the right view; from which it would appear that the majority of the Committee preferred the wrong. The MSS. are in strange confusion as to 10. The common reading seems to give the sense; and the margin of the Revised Version expresses it better perhaps than the text. In 11 Codex Reuchlini misled Erasmus to edit in all his editions 4. etpvloa (instead of &patty) followed in R. Stephen's first and second editions, but corrected in his third. It was right in the Coraplutensian edition. Matthaei edited the gloss Tofis inoim “my people” that dwell. Here in 14 “by the means of,” m the Authorized Version as in other English versions, should be “by reason of “; also “who hath” is right. And truly eccentric is the preference with Lachmann of aim.'"). (A C P) to airy. (X B and almost all other copies). There is little here to remark in 15, 16; but the Revisers rightly with others strike out the first “or” of the two in 17, Ta T. 0. Toll lip. being in apposition with 76 X.
In xiv. 1 it should be “the” Lamb on preponderant authority, though the Porphyrian uncial and at least seven cursives, &c., are known to omit the article which the Complutensian edition as well as Erasmus followed. But the Complutensian had better guidance in reading; A g a- o_ Ka. r_ _pop.a, as the Revisers translate, omitted by A _pOtOTEXIEV7011 no doubt in Codex Reuchlini as by Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza, so in the Authorised Version. His name and His Father's name is right. For “written” scriptum, (Iraq') Erasmuslhad kaidimm11, the odd error of Cod. Benchlini, in his editions 1.1, 2, and 3, reproduced in the editions of Aldus, Cephalaeus, &c. But if the idea of “burnt,” inustum, had been meant, the form would have been cEcaepiaov., not kaapavop which of course means burning. In the last clause of 2 it should be “the voice which “..” was as,” &c., on the fullest authority, though the Text. Rec. is not without support. The Complutensian edition is right. Ancient as well as modern versions, like the English, misled the Authorized Version here as elsewhere in “sung” for “sing,” as of course it stands in the Revised Version. But a very nice question is suggested by the conflict of the witnesses: should it be “a new song,” as in chapter v., or “as it were” &c. as in the Authorized and Revised Versions? N B P, most cursives and versions, omit kg, whereas some good cursives, Vulgate, &c., insert it. As to editions Alford and Tregelles bracket the word, Erasmus, Stephens, Beza,- Rlzevir, down to Lachmann adopt it, while the Complutensians, Bengel, Griesbach, Heinrich, Tischendorf (finally as at first), reject it. “Purchased” is right here, and in the following verse, as in chapter v. 9. The third “are” in 4, expressed in the received text, is probably to be understood only as in 14; A C P, &c.; but this makes no difference in sense. In 5, not “guile” but “lie” is the word. The MSS. (save A C P, 12) confirm “for,” but the words “before the throne of God” seem to have not one known Greek witness. In 6 “in mid-heaven” is right. But “set” or “settled” seems better than “dwelt” fora ka_v_VOVS. The anomalous Vevey, for Xbyorra, at the beginning of 7, the Revisers try to express by “And he saith.” The omission of +, “the,” before 0. sea is very doubtful, though three uncials and at least as many cursives favor it. The Revisers rightly omit “city,” in 8, and give “which,” rather than “because,” on good authority, though others not to be despised omit both, and make a new sentence begin here. The omission of the article as in Text. Rec. is unfounded, and due to Erasmus' carelessness, for the Reuchlin copy before him had no such barbarism. There is little to note in 9, save departure from order, and in 10 the article wrongly inserted, which may have led to Ivy. (In., instead of cin. 47. or the omission of the epithet altogether, as in A, 26. &c. Is it a happy rendering to say “an eternal gospel"? Would not “everlasting gospel” or glad tidings be better? Neither here, nor in Rom. 1:11Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Romans 1:1), nor anywhere else is the phrase anarthrous because it had become technical, but because the object was to present it characteristically, in distinction from the good news, at a special time, of God's grace or of Christ's glory. This, true from the garden of Eden, is to be enforced by the solemn warning of judgment at the doors. The Revisers go back to Tyndale and the Geneva version. Did any of these appreciate its exact force? Nor is there more to observe in 11; but 12 shows us kac, inserted before the latter clause, to get rid of an anomaly. From 13 “to me” should vanish, though not without the countenance of cursives, versions, and commentators. Both Erasmus and the Complutensians endorsed it. The Revisers in the margin give the unmeaning divisionwhich some of the ancients espoused and Wiclif expresses, and the Rhemish. Tyndale, followed by Cranmer and the Geneva version, gave “which hereafter dye in the lorde,” i.e., die in the Lord. But this is singularly far from the scope. On the contrary there was to be, when this epoch arrives, no more dying in the Lord: hence their blessedness is come, rest and reward assured. The Son of Man reaps the earth, and the vintage of unmingled wrath follows. It is the public award at the Lord's appearing, for those who had labored and suffered for Him, and with especial view to the comfort of the saints dying in the Apocalyptic crisis. There was to be no more dying in the Lord, but rather the blessedness of such thenceforward. “For,” not “and,” their works, &c. But ought not the Revisers, in accordance with their practice elsewhere, as in iv. 2, 4 (compared with 9, 10, and xiii. 1, 16, xiv. 9, 11), to have said “upon,” not “on,” the cloud? Cf 15, 16, in which last no doubt the genitive is right, not the accusative nor the dative. Neither cot nor coy is to be read in 15. In 18 the Revisers boldly adopt O with A C, “he that,” &c. But whence did our authorized translators get Tfjr ettoraou “of the vine"? Not from Erasmus or Stephens, but from Beza who refers to Arethas and the Complutensian edition, as well as two of his own copies and.he Vulgate-0 81. aic omnia. “As far as” fairly represents chrti in 20.