Revised New Testament: Revelation 21:9-27

By: William Kelly

• 7 min. read • grade level: 7

The words “unto me” in 9 are rightly struck out as having no known authority in Greek MSS. Erasmus' Codex Reuchlini opposes the learned editor himself who ventured to father them. The Complutensian editors (save in 1 John 5:7, 8⁷The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. ⁸Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. (John 5:7‑8)) adhered to their witnesses, such as they were; and of course here the words do not appear. The Armenian Version has the words, and also Lips.4 as the first of the three Latin versions of the Apocalypse in the Univ. Library of Leipzig is designated. “Quibus ergo (says C. F. Matthaei, x. 303, ed. Rigae, 1785) Codicibus nititur πρός με; Responsio apud Wetstenium in promptu est. Scilicet Codd. 1. 3. 5. 6. 13. 14. 15. Et qui semper Erasmo interroganti respondent: 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 28. Ergo omnino XIII. Cujus ergo hi recensionis sunt? Roterodamensis credo, ant Basileensis.” It may be bitterly ironical but is too true. Did Erasmus know of Armenian or Lips.4? If not, the same root of imagination bore the same wild fruit. In the Complutensian edition ἐκ τ. ἀγ rightly given, omitted not without the support of a few cursives by Erasmus, &c., down to the Received Text, but not affecting our versions. One cannot be surprised that copyists softened the solecism of τῶν γόμοντων in àp.m. A. P. 12. 19. &c. into τῶν γεμουσῶν as in àcorr and as this was unsatisfactory into τὰσ γεμούσας (as in 1. 7. &c.) or γεμ without τάς, as in B, and at least twenty-two cursives, &c., and so the Complutensian. B. and many omit τῶν before ἑπτά. The copies greatly vary in the order of the last words. But “the bride the wife of the Lamb” has the best authority, and the substantial sense is the same. In 10 “the great” should disappear, though Codex Reuchlini misled Erasmus, Complutensian editors, &c., not without six or more other cursives, and all the copies of Andreas' Comm. The manuscripts differ slightly as to the last words, but all the edd. are right, and so the versions, unless one except Wiclif, who has “from heume of God.” In 11 there is no copulative before ὁ φ. save in a few cursives and versions, which misled Erasmus &c., and the Authorized Version. The best authorities have it not. But Erasmus does give ὡς λἰθῳ though wanting in Codex Reuchlini and other cursives, &c. In 12 one cannot be surprised that Erasmus did not follow Codex Reuchlini, in ἔχουσα τε. But critics generally adhere to the solecism without τε as read in the best copies, and largely. Codex Sinaitic has the strange ἔχοντι in the first place, and ἔχοντι (corr. ἔχουσα) in the second, where the best also give that correction as their text, and Erasmus again gave ἔχουσαν. Lachmann alone of editors was bold enough to leave out “and at the gates twelve angels,” a mere omission through similar ending in the Alexandrian, a few Latin copies, and the later Syriac. Some of the Latin commentators, through a slip of copyists, were actually led to imagine “angles” for “angels.” And many and ancient copies support the addition of ὀνόματα (with or without τά) in the last clause, which misled Lachmann, Matthaei, Tregelles (bracketed in his ed. N. T.), Alford (bracketed), and Tischendorf till his last or eighth edition. The latest criticism returns to the reading of Erasmus and the Complutensians, the common text in short, as represented in à P 1. 37. 39. 47. 5 9. 51. 79. 91. 96. &c., save that τῶν, should vanish before υἱῶν on good and full authority as against 1. 7. &c. a few giving τοῦ, and others omitting. In 13 Codex Reuchlini and Latin copies led Erasmus, &c., to omit καί three times, but the Complutensian is right. In 14 Erasmus departed from ἔχων, in 1, which is also read in A B P and several cursives, for ἔχων as in most with àcorr. (àp.m. omitting like the Aeth.) But it is doubtful if any MS. authorizes ἐν αὐτῖος as in Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, (1. like 7. omitting καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς probably due to the Vulgate, but the margin of 1. adding in red καὶ ἐπ' -αὐτῶν). The Received Text from Erasmus also omits δώδεκα, “twelve,” before “names,” though it stands in the margin of 1. The Complutensian is correct. Erasmus followed 1. (which has other support) in dropping μέτρον in 15, though there can be no doubt of its genuineness; and so all critics. In 16 Codex Reuchlini is defective, for it has not καὶ τὸ μῆκος αὐτῆς ὅσον τὸ πλάτος. Hence Erasmus seems to have translated from the Vulgate κ. τ. μ. ἀ. τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν ὅσον καὶ τ. πλ. à displaces the first words. The Complutensian edition has σταδίους, and so A B and most, with Elzevir. But Erasmus &c., gave σταδίων, and so à P 1, &c. In 17 there is nothing that calls for our notice. In 18 ἦν of the Received Text has large support, but is left out by the best, though Codex Sinaitic.pm. omits ἡ and reads the substantive verb. ὅμοιον (Compl.) displaces ὁμοία as in 1. &c., as it has by far the best and most witnesses. At the beginning of 19 καἰ stands in 1. 7. and many more, and so in the Received Text, as well, as the Complutensian, but not in the best MSS. or even the oldest Latin.1 In 20 à A B P and about 25 cursives have σάρδιον for -ος as in Erasmus, the Complutensian, &c., with many cursives. Other shades of difference may be left.;— But in 21 how came Erasmus to give us διαφανής instead of the true reading διαυγής in 1. and forty more cursives, &c., as well as the uncials à A B P? Was it not odd of a scholar like Lachmann to edit after A ὁ before ναὸς αὐτῆς in 22? The last clause proves that it could not be correct Greek; and apart from this to make it not a predicate but reciprocal has no just sense. In 23 ἐν is not in 1. and many other juniors, beside àp.m. A B P, &c. Erasmus probably followed the Vulgate. But the Complutensian has it, and several cursives, as well as àcorr. Some have αὐτήν. But in 24 there is the serious error in the Received Text of τῶν σςζομένων in accordance with the Codex Reuchlini. Probably it is due to some Greek comment as in Cramer's (Cat. P. Gr. vi. 577, Oxon. 1840, though τὰ μὲν οὀν σωζόμενα ἔθνη does not justify the confusion of the received text. And such I see is the opinion of Matthaei (x. 198) who cites a scholium of Andreas, which Tischendorf borrows. ἐν ( 1. omits) τῷ φ., as in the Received Text, should be διὰ τ. φ. on the amplest evidence; and καὶ τὴν τιμήν, though edited by the Complutensians as well as Erasmus, and not without more support than they knew, should disappear on better testimony. No doubt the words were imported from verse 26, which furnishes itself no other occasion for remark, save that Codex Reuchlini leaves it out altogether. In 27 Erasmus found κοινων in his copy, which he changed into κοινοῦν without authority, and so it went on to the Received Text. The Complutensian had the true reading κοινόν as in à A B P, and the mass of cursives &c. ποιοῦν is in 1. &c., but -ῶν is fully justified.

Click here to show subject links in the text for more information.