In 15:1 the Revisers give rightly “seven plagues, the last” (i.e., such as are the last), not “the seven last plagues” as in the Authorized. Version. The reason is annexed why they were the last—because in them was finished the wrath of God. It is scarce necessary to add that “finished” is the true rendering of JTA jaVe, not “filled up,” which would answer rather toenAlipiLOry, the reading of no copy whatever. In 2 occurs again the error of “glassy” in the Revised Version, whereas the Authorized Version “of glass” is correct, as pointed out in the remarks on chap. iv. 6. It is the symbolic material in contrast with the sea of water in the temple: no longer the means of cleansing, but the sign of fixed purity. The misrendering destroys the, doctrine, as far as it goes, and insinuates either mere sentiment or a false thought in lieu of the truth intended. Unlike the vision of ch. iv., this sea was mingled with fire: those who reached it had passed through God's judicially inflicted tribulation, as their enthroned predecessors had not (having been caught up before it). “Them that come victorious from” is certainly more literal and pregnant like the Greek than “them that had gotten the victory over.” It is the usual form of designating a class apart from time. But surely the marginal “upon” or the Authorized Version “on” the glass sea is right, not the mere “by” of the Revised Version. “On the shore” of the sea is a perversion, if the sea refer to the temple; and it would be hard to bring in the Red Sea among the allusions of chapter iv. And if the Red Sea be excluded there, the beauty of the same image here, with the characteristic difference of mingled with fire, would be lost by including the Red Sea in it. To my mind the intention was to show these later overcomers as distinct, not only from the twenty-four elders, but also from the earlier martyrs of chap. vi. 9-11. If so, there is no reason from the imagery of chap. iv. in favor of “by,” or “at,” as against “on,” any more than from Ex. 15 “Over his mark” in the Authorized Version is the Erasmian misreading, with a few cursives, an addition opposed to all the best authorities. The Complutensian editors were right. “The” harps of gold seems to have been the blunder of all the English versions from Wiclif to the Authorized Version. Certainly neither Erasmus nor the Complutensians, neither Stephens nor yet Beza, receive the article, though given in B 2, 7, 8, 16, 29, 32, 35, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, 50, 87, 94, 97, not to speak of Andreas and Arethas. But there appears to be no doubt that it is an error, probably from repeating the last syllable of the preceding word. It is hard to conceive why the Revisers preferred a;...wwv “ages,” to eevan, “nations,” in the face of Jer. 10:77Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. (Jeremiah 10:7). No doubt the authorities are conflicting; but the Old Testament allusion is evident, and the context confirms it in the verse that follows. Probably the absurdly false reading which Erasmus (not the Complutensians) gave against his own MS. 1, and without any known Greek copy was due to confounding some abbreviation of seculorum for sanctorum, as Tischendorf conjectures; as it is likely that the Revisers' reading is due to 1 Tim. 1:1717Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17). No wonder then that Bengel, Griesbach, Heinrich, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, T. S. Green, Alford, Wordsworth, hold to lOvel,v, if Westcott and Hort alone, or nearly so, prefer a;u'm, v. But should such a reading have found its way into the text of the Revised New Testament? Surely what has been discredited by so many and various critics of the highest eminence, on ample authority, ought not to be brought by Cambridge influence into a work which seeks universal acceptance. In 4 the pronoun is not found in the best witnesses, though in most of the cursives &c., 95 shifting its place. The Greek for “holy” differs in the MSS, the best reading that which implies mercy in God (or piety in men), and not what means separation to God. So also the Revisers rightly say “the” nations.; for they shall all come yet and pay homage before God, but this as the fruit of the manifestation of His righteousnesses or righteous acts, not of the gospel as now preached. The gospel of His grace calls and separates the believer to Christ in heaven. It is hardly “I looked” as in the Authorized Version of 5, but “I saw,” as “behold” should vanish; for not even Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini has it and, of course, not the Complutensian edition. But in 6 we have the portentous reading AZOov `• a stone?” (A C 38, 39, 48, 90, 4) favored by Lachmann and Tregelles, as lately by the Cambridge professors, against all the other authorities, though some support the plural form of linen. Ezell. xxviii. seems a poor ground in the gorgeous description of Tire's prince for the holy executors of God's last plagues. No doubt, in chap. xix. 14 the word used is f3. not A. But this is as it should be; for angels are quite distinct from saints, however much superstitious ignorance, never Scripture, tends to merge them together. Here again, what were the Committee about to let the redoubtable twain with their satellites persuade competent and independent minds into such a vagary, or at least so questionable a word? In the editions of L., Tr., and of W. & H., it is not so singular. A public work should have been better safe-guarded. It is “bowls” in 7 rather than “vials"; and so throughout chap. xvi., &c. In 8 it is “finished” as in 1. It was not yet Christ coming to execute judgment in person, and to reign righteously over the earth; but the ministers of divine providence come out to complete the seven plagues of God's wrath before the day of His appearing. It is no question of saints on earth drawing near into the sanctuary (as now by the blood of Jesus in full assurance of faith), but of none able to enter till the angels have finished their task of judgment.
In xvi. 1 the Revisers give it literally “into,” not “upon,” and so in 2, 3, 4. The difference is maintained in the Greek, for it is strictly “upon” in the latter part of 2, 8, 10, 12, (of 4), 17. In the Text Rec. of 2 it is wrongly E;S in the latter part, but en-i is unquestionable. Near the end of 3 -rci seems omitted, as indeed B P and most cursives support the commonly received text. But A C, &c., give TA which might easily be dropt. The sense is substantially the same. In 4 they say “it” became blood. The change in 5 is greater, and on excellent authority. “O Lord” is omitted, and “thou Holy One” appears instead of “and shalt be.” In 6 “for” is dropt rightly. In 7 it should be “I heard the altar say on first-rate authority; as no doubt “another out of” is an interpolation due to the desire of softening so bold a figure. In 8 “it” is probably right, rather than “him,” as in the Authorized Version, which is put in the margin. In 9 why not “the” men? On the other hand they say “the” God, &c. In 10 as in 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, and 17 “angel” is excluded on very good grounds. Of course “throne” should displace “seat.” In 12 it is “from the sun-rising,” not “of the east.” The article in the Greek is probably right. In 16 the Revisers, like many, render “they,” not “he.” Grammatically, it might be either. If “they,” it is the evil spirits as instruments; if “he,” it is the One who employed them. “Of heaven” in 17 is very doubtful, though read by the later B and most cursives. In 18 are some slight corrections; and so there are in verses 19-21, but nothing calls for especial mention. “A man” has ancient and excellent authority in both MSS. and Versions, “men” rather more in Greek copies—and the Revised Version gives better the anarthrous form, as the Authorized Version would rather express the Received Text vi 11v0. with the mass of cursives. In 30 the Greek means, not “the mountains were not” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions, but “no mountains were,” &c. It is the old feebleness, or worse, in respect of the article.