19:1 “And” should disappear from the beginning according to the best and fullest authority (N A B C P, thirty-five cursives, Vulgate, Memph. Syr. &c., as against several cursives, Arm., Aeth., &c., followed by Erasmus, Complutensian, Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. But there is as good authority for inserting its “as it were” after “I heard"; and here the Complutensian and Elzevir differ from Erasmus, and Stephens whom the Authorized Version followed. The ancient order too has been departed from, and the grammatical form with perhaps not one copy by Erasmus, and so Stephens, Beza, Elzevir, but not the Complutensian editors who adhered to the constr. ad sans. of Xelaivrevv. Kai 71 pi. “and honor” is an addition from preceding ascription of praise, but not without some small support of inferior authorities here. The Complutensian edition rightly left it out, but Erasmus followed his Codex Reuchlini in its insertion. ToP 0.?)u. “of our God” with the best, and so the Cbmplutensian, not “to” Ti us some copies and ancient versions, &c., still less soply T. 0 in. as in Codex Reuohlini, Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. In 2 there is little to note, though the copies differ a good deal. The Complutensian editors omit the article before x. as is done in the best copies, but the Codex Reuchlini with others reads it and misled the other early editors. In 3 there is yet less to say. though the copies differ somewhat in form. The order of words in'4 also differs even in the better copies, as of forms also. T67 Of., I doubt not, is here more correct than Toll Of. as in the Received Text. The Complutensian here is no better than Erasmus. The Porphyrian uncial has 71211, Of.-probably a mere lapse for Tti:' Of. The other uncials give the dative, not the genitive. With the saints they have the accusative, as in chap. iv. and xx.; with God or Christ, the accusative the first time as in iv. 2, and xx. 11 (as in xiv. 14, and xix. 11 also) the genitive or the dative afterward, and not without a distinction. The Sinaitic is very wrong in reading the plural in 5 “voices” for “a voice"; as the common text er is superior to acrd in A B C, five-and-twenty cursives, &c., some of which add the further errbr of changing Of. into oi,pavoi). Then Tic 0. is supported by the beet copies against TOL 0. as in many eursives followed by Erasmus, the Complutensian, &c. Ka/ before of q5. wants the excellent authority of 14 C P, but it has the very large support of A B, perhaps all the cursives and ancient versions. “Both” should vanish before “small,” as in the Complutensian against Erasmus and those that went in his wake with Codex Reuchlini, &c. Compare chap. xi. 18, which confirms the copulative in the first ease, not in the last. In 6 the Complutensian edition has 4)9 “as it were,” after not Erasmus; though his own copy has it corrected in red above. A Vienna cursive (36) has it after q5. The best copies give it, and of course before c5. • and so the Complutensian, Stephens, Beza, Elzevir. Singular to say, Lachmann omitted the second “as” with A and a few cursives, contrary to all other authority. ley. is only a question of form-ooTo9 01/7E9, Or-OPTOW, as in the Complutensian, which fast has the best authority, the others arising from desired smoothness. The Revisers are here obliged to content themselves like the Authorized Version, with “reigneth” for 4PaaiXelarea. In xi. 17 they have “didst reign” for “hast reigned” of the Authorized Version. It is not easy to convey in English its aoristic force; and such a case may have misled our old translators into a lower view of its meaning than is just. To represent it always in English as a simple preterite is a delusion. “Our” is lacking in the last clause of the Received Text, and hence in the Authorized Version, through. Erasmus and the Codex Reuchlini, though not alone, for even A and others omit it. But there is ample proof for it. In 7 there is little but difference of form to note, as in 8 change of order. In 9 copies strangely insert and omit, and shuffle; but such minute points are not my present object. In 10 there is little textual to remark. The chief matter is that the best copies omit ToP before the first I, where Erasmus is right, not Stephens, Beza, or Elzevir; and so before the second where the Complutensian joins them, with undoubtedly much cursive support, but not the best authority. It may be here noticed that the meaning of the last clause is to affirm that the Spirit of prophecy (not merely the Spirit in the apostolic epistles, but in the Revelation also) is the witness of Jesus. This might, from its Old Testament character, have been otherwise doubted. The prophecy too is His testimony; it is very different from the gospel, but it is His witness none the less. And further, it seems an assumption that it is a testimony to Him; for this would be either the dative in Greek (as in English), or the genitive after rep/ as a regular rule. It is the testimony Jesus is rendering in the book, whoever may receive or repeat it. CL mpare chap. i. 2, xii. 17. Tischendorf says that Lachman n omits KaXoOltEvo 9 (11), but it is only so in his earlier small edition (not in his later) with A &c. Indeed some of the best Latin copies add “vocatur” to “vocabatur,” as Tregelles edits the Vulgate; and so it stands in Buttmann's contribution to the larger work. In 12 Lachmann agrees with the Received Text and Authorized Version in reading i;79 “as” with A, many cursives, and versions. The Revisers rightly discard this on ample grounds; and give “diadems” rather than “crowns.” Tischendorf in his latest edition rejected his own previous yielding to B, five and twenty cursives, Septuagint, &c., in the addition of (;rdliaTa rycypappeva Kai as in the Complutension also. The Sinaitic is too careless here to weigh much; the Alexandrian and Porphyrian preserve the true text; C here fails. In 13 the vesture dipt in or sprinkled with blood marks Him as coming in vengeance, as in Isa. 63, which it is utter unintelligence to apply to His own blood. He is the holy Avenger, as once the spotless Lamb. The Hebrew of Isaiah strengthens the value of “sprinkled"; but the Septuagint is little or no help. The MSS. fluctuate painfully. X r.m. has reptpepait,u4vov which Origen and the Latins confirm; P 36 i;epapTurldvov. The majority with A B support, in the Received Text, flePa,a. So reads the Complutensian, and KaXciTat like Erasmus; but the best have K (Up.” KcanTo being a slip). In 14 the article repeated before ev is omitted by iZ B and many cursives, to which the last syllable preceding probably contributed), as in Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza; but it appears in A P and many cursives & in the Complutensian and Elzevir, which the Revisers rightly prefer. “The armies that are in heaven” are the same glorified saints who had been in chap. xvii. 14 described as 0; per' airroi), not angelic but saintly, as is plain also from what follows; they were clothed in /.300-01v0p, fine linen, white, pure. Compare chap. xv. where angels are said to be arrayed in linen (X/v0v), or if we believe the Revisers with “stone” (X/00v) pure, bright; a still farther remove from the clothing of the saints. In 15 the only notable change is the exclusion of Kai “and” before “wrath” which the Received Text had with most from Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini, and a few others, Andr. in some copies, contrary to all the rest and the Complutensian edition. In 16 the article is wrongly in T. R. from Erasmus downwards before “name"; but all English have rightly “a” name, perhaps from the Complutensian. In 17 the Revisers have rightly “birds” rather than “fowl,” and “mid-heaven,” for “the midst of heaven.” But the change of moment is “the great supper of God,” on the authority of
A B P, more than 35 cursives, and most ancient versions, &c., instead of “the supper of the great God” as in the Received Text from Erasmus (not the Complutensian) following Codex Reuchlini and a few others. In 18 the Uncials exhibit all three possible forms after eri, genitive B P and most, dative X, accusative A and a few followed by Lachmann. Our Authorized Version prints “both” in italics, following the Received Text, which was due to Erasmus. But the Complutensian had TE rightly with the best and most which warrant “both.” But the IT after,a(Kpi.v'y “small” is not read by the more ancient, though in B and more than thirty.juniors which the Complutensian edition follows, not Erasmus or the Received Text. In 19 Lachmann with A and a few cursives has the strange “his” for “their” armies. It may be a mere slip from the end of the verse. The article should be heeded before 7r. “war,” the or their war, though the Received Text after Erasmus and the Complutensian is not without support (1. 6. &c.) and lately the Porphyrian uncial. In 20 the reading of Erasmus and so of the Received Text is perA T. which is not so good Greek as itET'ab.r. but makes no sensible difference in English. It rests on 1. 49. &c., against all of value. Tischendorf in his eighth edition abandons 6 pci' a&r. as in B, many cursives, &c., for per' abr. O as in P, &c. The reading in A 41 Cop. is a blunder; 0 pET7at)T. O. and still more in 34.; 0- /LET' 111T. Akcao7rpocaiTar, “the false prophets with him.” The article should be expressed before “miracles” or rather “signs"; but it as in the Received Text should disappear before 0. at the close, though the Codex Reuchlini was not alone in misleading Erasmus. Is it correct to say with the Revisers as well as the Authorized Version that “had” received &c.? His deceiving was not after, but before, they received the mark of the beast. B and most correct the solecism of X A P, &c. A 1-01/ a-. Tijs K. which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford adopt. In 21 how strange too that Erasmus in his first and second editions should not have 70;) (right in his MS.) before K00,/,06',,00. In his fifth edition it is corrected. The true reading is JEE-X0. (X A B P and almost if not all known authorities; evrop. “goeth” or “proceedeth” was Erasmus' guess, perhaps founded on the Vulgate, but contrary to his MS., Codex Reuchlini. The Complutensian is right, not Steph. nor Beza.