Revised New Testament: Revelation 17-18

 •  9 min. read  •  grade level: 8
Listen from:
• BibleTruthPublishers.com
In xvii. 1 /tot “to me” rests on the witness of a few cursives, &c. The omission is assuredly right, and has all the higher authorities, and the mass too. But there is conflict as to the articles in the last phrase; and Tischendorf would not have decided against st A P, &c., which omit them, without very good reason. C. is here defective. It seems doubtful. But the Revisers seem to give rightly a preterit or aoristic expression in 2 rather than a perfect. —In 3 it is “a” not “the,” wilderness. In 4 “precious stone.” But why in the Revision, “even the unclean things of her fornication “? No doubt the Authorized Version renders loosely “and filthiness,” &c., or rather follows the Received Text, which was probably only Erasmus' guess, as Codex Reuchlini reads -ra imieairra with almost all witnesses, and so the Complutensian editors and all the critics.-(6) “The” harlots, &c., say the Revisers rightly; and “of the” abominations also. This was a case, not of reading, but of mistranslation in all the older English versions, save that of Rheims. Besides, they had from Latin influence the “whoredom” or fornications of the Authorized Version margin as their text. In 6 why do the Revisers here perpetuate the “martyrs” of the Authorized. Version? They give “witness” in Acts 22:2020And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. (Acts 22:20), and in Rev. 2:1313I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. (Revelation 2:13), and of course everywhere, I believe, as indeed elsewhere “martyr” would be a ridiculous blunder; but why here? An oversight it is presumed. “A” great wonder seems strange English. In 7 “wonder” is no doubt.better retained than “marvel.” The Authorized Version erred in omitting “the” ten horns. Erasmus too had no reason to leave out the article at the beginning of 8, for his copy had it all right; and so the Complutensian edition of course. But the translators rendered as if it were there. It was a strange freak of Lachmann to edit lry6wa7r7o on the slip of A (e7Jfypa7rrat), which clearly should have been 1,47pavTat with all other authorities, save perhaps a cursive or two. The “name” or “names” is a fair question, as the witnesses are divided. But there is no doubt about the important correction at the end of the verse, waplcrrat “shall come” or be present, X A B P, more than 40 cursives, &c., as in, the Complutensian edition. Even Erasmus' copy had Ka; ircipecrrt as in X C W, and at least half, a dozen cursives besides; his 'calve', EfITEL which crept into the Received Text, and led to the Authorized Version, “and yet is” is simply baseless and absurd. The Vulgate, like the 2Ethiopic, gives nothing here: so of course Wiclif and the Rhemish, and also, strange to say, Tyndale and Cranmer. The Geneva followed the Stephanie Text. Only some of the copies joined 7rapbrTai with it SE in 9, which last B omits and joins 7r. with o van, and so perhaps the Vulgate and the English Versions that followed it. In 10 the Revisers are justified, I think, in giving “they” for “there"; but are they right in “the” five, “the” one? They well drop the copulative after “five are fallen."-11 is given rather better, “even he is an eighth,” &c. So is 12 less equivocal in the Revised Version. In 13 the Authorized Version gave erroneously “strength” as the equivalent of E ovaia. It should be “authority.” —The ellipse in 14 is filled up cumbrously by the Revisers; I doubt that any supply is needed in English, and the briefer the better, if intelligible. In 16 not “upon” but “and” the beast is the true reading and sense, as in all known MSS., uncial and cursive, and in the ancient versions, &c., save a few Latin copies, and Arethas, some omitting it altogether. The truth conveyed is of high moment; for thus it appears that the ten horns, instead of supplanting the beast, as in the past, are in the future to join him (cf. ver. 12) in destroying the harlot: a death-blow to the mere historicalist theory. The empire once ruled in unity; the divided kingdoms have ruled since; never yet has there been an imperial head guiding them all in vengeance on the harlot of Rome, any more than the destruction of the Emperor and his satellite kings under the Lamb and the glorified saints from heaven.. (cf. Rev. 19) If history records the two first, prophecy bids us await the two last: to treat these as past is trifling with scripture. It is for the beast at least a divinely executed and everlasting destruction, instead of being, as with the previous empires, a providential overthrow only. Compare Dan. 7:11, 1211I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. 12As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. (Daniel 7:11‑12). Babylon falls otherwise, as we have seen. In 17 the reading of the Received Text is found in no known manuscript Ta pq. TACO° and is probably due to Erasmus, even Andreas and Arethas._. TC_ Ca _01, a0VTal, but refusing support. The true is oi -X X the version is unaffected substantially. I think that the peculiar sway of Rome is marked peculiarly in the Greek of 18, and not justly reflected in the Authorised and Revised versions any more than in the other older Protestant translations. Wiclif and the Rhemish cleaving to the Vulgate are more literal, but as usual crude enough.
In xviii. 1 the copulative which introduces the chapter in the Received Text and the Authorized Version is supported by route cursives and ancient versions, and stands in the Complutensian edition as well as in those of Erasmus; but the best authorities discard it. But (7\\0v, “another,” omitted in Codex Reuchlini and two or three more is read by all the uncials, the cursives generally, the ancient versions, and the Greek and Latin commentators, as it rightly appears not in the Received Text but in the Authorized Version. In 2 it should be “cried with a strong voice,” not 7efxv1: 0.. It. as in the Received Text without known authority, but ierxvpi c. with the best and most. A and many cursives and versions have (!ircerev “is fallen” twice, P has it thrice; but B, very many cursives and old versions and writers, read it but once. There are various insertions and omissions in the copies which call for no special notice here. “Hold” —=—cb. the prison where they are forcibly kept. “Foul” and “unclean” in the Authorized _Ka_.41701.1. version represent.; Th; —In 3 occurs a singular discrepancy among the copies. Should it be 7rit-euicar or WE'71"710(0)KaV (or-aa1V)? “Drunk” or “fallen by"? Alford hesitated, Lachmann gave the last in his lesser and the first in his larger edition, Tischendorf and Wordsworth the first, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort—the last, Bengel, Griesbach, and Scholz adhering to the same sense in 77-7revice of the Received Text. Here again are sundry variations in the copies, omitting or inserting strangely. “Luxury” or “wanton pride” seems better than “delicacies.” In 4 are changes of order from that of the Received Text, but we may leave this. In 5 Received Text (with 33, 34, if we trust. Alter) isircoxo lieycra v “followed,” instead of the unquestionable. eiroAViegariv “were joined, heaped up, clave.” The Authorized and Revised Versions both give “have reached” rather singularly. In 6 “you” disappears for ample reason, as does “unto her” though the Received Text has here better support. “The” double is doubtful, even Lachmann omitting it with A B P and many cursives. The (7-re omitted before K. in the Received Text of 7 makes no substantial difference in the version. In 8 the best authorities (14 I'm• A B C 1', about 35 cursives, good ancient versions, and ecclesiastical writers) concur in “judged,” rather than “judgeth,” as in the Received Text, with several cursives, &c. In 9 “her” vanishes after “bewail” or “weep,” though not without authority; and sir' ((Hy “over her” displaces r'airrij “for her,” and again in 11. In 12 the Revisers rightly leave Out “the” merchandise (lit. lading or cargo); they also say “stone,” and correct like small blemishes in this verse and the following.13, from which last fell out of many copies and the Received Text Ka; 4101101, “and amomum,” or spice, after cinnamon, no doubt from similarity of ending. In 14 “the splendid” instead of “goodly” are “perished” rather than “departed,” which is an inferior reading. “And” should not begin 16. In 17 is not KI,fl. a “helmsman,” or “pilot,” rather than “shipmaster,” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions? i',KN(ipo• was rather the skipper or shipmaster. But fir; Tkc 77-Xot'or 6 (7p(Xos. “the company in ships” (Received Text front Codex Reuehlim) is a wild departure from o cr; 747rov rXetet, “that saileth to a place,” meaning every passenger for a place, rather than, with M. Stuart, a coaster (i.e., one who does not go out to sea), as the lust clause embraces as many as ply the sea. In 13 it is of course “the,” not “this,” great city. In 19 “their” ships in the sea. The article is omitted in the Received Text on slender ground. In 20 it should be “ye saints and” on excellent and abundant authority, also “ye” apostles, and “ye” prophets, but certainly not “thou” heaven, which is less correct than the Authorized “thou.” But how came the Revisers to render (YK/acup “hath” judged, like the Authorized Version? In 21 (7p. = with a rush, or even “violence” as in the Authorized Version answers better to the usage of the Septuagint (Ex. 32:2121And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? (Exodus 32:21), Dent. xxviii. 49, Hos. 5:1010The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bound: therefore I will pour out my wrath upon them like water. (Hosea 5:10), Amos 1:1111Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever: (Amos 1:11), Hab. 1:1111Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, imputing this his power unto his god. (Habakkuk 1:11), not to speak of the apocryphal 1 Mace. iv. 8, 30, vi. 33, 47), than the “mighty fall” of the Revisers. In the classical writers it is used for “passionate feeling,” or “indignation,” never that I know for a great fall. In 22 p. is well given as “minstrels” or “singers,” for it must mean something more distinctive than “musicians.” In “lamp,” rather titan “candle,” and assuredly “sorcery,” not “soreeries.” In 24 that “have been” slain or slaughtered. If the Hebraistic a7p(cra be right, rather than the singular form, it is against the concurrence, of the most ancient MSS., A C 1', with some cursive support, &c. In chap. xvi. 36. 39. support a7pwra, but A B C P and almost all the juniors read aipa.