In 10 the the true reading is not;halts., but airroxis, “them,” which falls in with the omitted object in the preceding verse, and the verb that follows, “they (not we) shall reign.” But “over the earth” is surely the right rendering of 4v; following a verb of rule. When the place in which one reigns is required, it is έν.
But er; implies the sphere or subject over which the rule extends, as any one can verify in the Greek version of Kings and Chronicles, and indeed in any correct Greek writing. Apart from government or authority, e7r; Tip y. might well mean “on the earth,” but not when so connected as here. There is another question of moment in the verse which the Revisers seem to have decided wrongly, the present instead of the future of the last verb. The reign of the saints over the earth (or, if they will, upon it) by the showing of the Revelation itself was not yet come till chap. xx., after most weighty and striking changes, and it can only be anticipated here. It is untrue, even if the church were in question, (which it is not) that we are yet reigning, though made priests and kings in title. Compare 1 Cor. 4:8, and Rev. 3:21: even our Lord sits, the rejected but exalted King, with His Father on His throne, and has as yet only given us the promise of sitting with Him on His own throne. He will come in His kingdom; and it is in the resurrection or changed state that we shall reign with Him, not in our natural bodies, nor yet in the disembodied condition. “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? Know ye, not that we shall judge angels?” (1 Cor. 6:2, 3.) That the church now reigns in Christ, all things being put under her as under His feet, is Popery, not Christianity. True doctrine therefore confirms H P and some thirty cursives, some of the best versions and early comments, as against A B, some twenty-six cursives, &c., especially as it is but the question of a central letter easily dropt. This can be readily seen in Rev. 20:6, where the Alexandrian alone has the present against all other authority and the context, though it is not really so absurd there as in v. 10. Yet the Revisers have introduced this violent and really unreasonable change, without even a marginal note to record the protest of one dissenting voice that understood its bearing. The Americans are equally silent. Naturally they correct in 13 the singular confusion of the Authorized Version, and give “on” the sea. They also mark the article “the” blessing, &c. Another important correction long known is the omission not only of “twenty four” in the middle but of the object at the close of 14, the effect of which is to imply that the elders fell down and did homage to the Lamb as well as to Him that sitteth on the throne, in accordance with the verse before. “Him that liveth forever and ever” has not a known Greek copy to warrant the addition, which is due to Western influence. It is noted as singular that Ewald in his Comm (Lipsiae, 1828), after drawing out well the critical correction of 9, 10, should have wound up his remarks by an irreverent and heterodox note on the verse before us, based on this unfounded reading due to Erasmus, who translated Primasius or a later copy of the Vulgate, and translated it ill, for he omitted the article before t'LZA,Tt. The Complutensian text printed before Erasmus' first edition rightly omits the words.
In vi. 1 it is hard to see why the Revisers should render their correct text “with” a voice, as it is a nom. pond. They rightly read “seven,” and as rightly omit “and see,” though B and near forty cursives support the sense, not one known MS., the precise form (SVirc, a conjecture of Erasmus) of the Text. Rec. The correction here is valuable; for the call of each living creature is not to the prophet of any other than to each horseman, who thereon does come. Some have thought that the copyists were influenced by Ezek. 8:9; possibly it was John 1:39: if so, it was a strange blunder. Even if Kai Me, as is most likely, was inferred from the immediately following Kai c7Sou (May), it was a baseless and fraudulent addition. A similar remark applies to 3, 5, 7. In 2 there is no more to remark in the text than az;TOv instead of ai,q, as in 4, 5 also, which is required by ample authority. The differing force can be a good deal better felt than expressed. The genitive would be the fact simply; the dative, a permanent relation; the accusative, activity on the part of the sitter. Here it is of course no question of a state or fixed position as in Matt. 16:18, Mark 6:35, Luke 12:44, John 8:7, but there is an object actively in view. All three occur in connection with the throne in Rev. 4:2 (ace.) 10 (gen.), v. 1, 7 & 13 (dat.) as in iv. 9, vi. 16, used with marked precision, the more remarkable as in a book abounding with anomalous Hebraistic forms, yet disproving any imputation of ignorance. Dean Alford, in a note on the first, notices how the ace. is used uniformly on the first mention, thus bearing trace of motion toward; but then at sight of xi. 16, where it is not a first mention, he wavers, and gives up the gen. and dat. as seeming to have no rule at all: a conclusion due to his own defect of analysis. “Came” is better than “went.” In 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and in viii. 1, “had” should be omitted as in Authorized Version of 1. In 4 “power” of the Authorized Version is needless. In 5 “a balance” is right. In 6 “as it were” a voice is required by the most ancient witnesses, though ancient versions, save Vulgate, omit it like our Authorized Version. The Revisers are right in 8 as in 5 giving “saw,” not “beheld” and “looked,” as in the Authorised Version of 1 and 9. “By” is right in indicating direct agency, not “with,” a general character of destruction. In 9 the perfect participle, expressive of a permanent character or state, ought not to have been as in the Authorized Version merged in a simple preterite. For “were” read “have been.” In 10 it is rightly, “O Master, the” &c. In 11 “a white robe was” given is alone true according to the MSS., and ailTois Zicricrrrp is probably if not certainly right. For one could readily understand one or other left out by design as if needless, and the omission of El C. would next lead to the plural form in the versions. It has been thought that 41C1L0-70l9 as in Text. Rec. had the support of many cursives; but not one is known as yet. There is a curious-lacuna in the Complutensian edition, marked in the Greek text in the way so characteristic and common in their accompanying Vulgate, so that we cannot cite that work as to the point. They have marked the defect wrongly however, for their line should have been after Kl1; (Well aiproic and before 7aa rivar. K. 7. X., not before all. It was Erasmus probably who invented the ?TOES. plural, as well as -K The marginal rendering of the Revised Version answers to the reading of B P and some fifty cursives; that of the Text. Rec. is probably Erasmus' guess once more, as we know of no Greek copy that warrants it. We know from Dr. F. Delitzsch's collation that God. Reuchlini, the great Rotterdam scholar's MS., has a lacuna similar to that which the Complutensian edition must have had, (doubtless from the A _potoraurrov of ainois) „and that it gave 77-XviLateetv and not 77-Xlipaiaovrrit. The active sense is unsuitable. The Authorized Version is right; but how they drew it, unless from the Complutensian, it is hard to conceive, as the ordinary text conveys no such meaning. The critical reader can compare a similar conflict of readings in ix. 5, as to 7va /3. where the Complutensian editors give f3acravicwar. In 12 “lo” rightly vanishes, and the “whole” moon is read, on excellent authority. There are changes in 13, 14, but too slight to detain us. In 15 “the rich” properly follows the chief captains or chiliarchs; and the “caves” is better than “dens.” In 16 “said” was the mere carelessness of Tyndale, followed by the other Protestant English translations, Wiclif and the Rhemish being right. But “their” or “his” wrath in 17 is a nice question, for high authorities support each, as in the case of “them” or “his” in 8; and it does seem singular that the Revisers do not notice the alternative in their margin.
In vii. 1 the omission of “and” is a strong measure, resting on A. C. and the Vulgate against all other authority; and here again no notice in the margin. “This,” not “these things,” is right. “At” instead of “upon as at the end of this verse, is questionable. In 2 we have “sunrising” for “east.” In 3 “in” is changed rightly to “on.” But “children,” not “sons,” is still the word in 4. In 5-8 “sealed” disappears rightly, save at the beginning and at the end. In 9 “these things” we find correctly for “this"; “out of every nation"; and “standing.” In 10 it is “they cry,” not “cried.” In 11-13 there is scarce anything notable; but in 14 it is rightly “come out of the great tribulation.” In 15 “dwell among” is very properly changed into “shall spread his tabernacle over.” In 16 “strike” or “fall” is better than “light.” In 17 we have very literally “be their shepherd and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life,” as also “every tear.”
“Followed” inviii. 1„seems taken from the Authorized Version of 7. In 2 “stand” is right, not “stood.” The marginal “at,” as in the text of the Authorized Version, seems more suitable than “over” the altar. But both Revised Version and Authorized Version miss the force of adRict here. The Authorized Version might have drawn it from their own rendering of chap. xi. 3, though efficacy is perhaps better than power, especially here. The supply of the ellipse by Lyra and Corn. a Lap. and by Beza is erroneous; and “it” or nothing is too vague. “The saints” is correct. In 4 “which came” should be dropt.—In crANOcv here as in v. 7, one may be slow to believe that the perfect does not involve a continuance which the aorist does not express; but it is hard to say more than “took” as the Authorized and Revised Versions. But “the” fire is right. The order of the words at the end is not certain. In 7 “And the first” is better than “The first angel,” which was assimilated to 8, 10, and 12. “And the third part of the earth was burnt up,” should be added as in the Revised Version. In 10 it should be as a “torch.” In 13 the important variant “eagle” on ample authority displaces “angel.”
In ix.1, “fallen” is right, not “fall,” as in Authorized Version, a fault of rendering rather than of reading, for 77-177-Towra is given by not even one cursive. Pit “of the abyss” is also better; and so throughout. In 4 “said” is, right, and “such” represents 077(VCS better than the Authorized Version, as being character and not mere fact. In 6 also the force is given more. But why not put “shapes” in the margin, if it must be given, and have “likenesses” in the text of 7? “Was” is right; and again in the end of 9. The Complutensian, Griesbach, and Scholz have xpvcro2(not without considerable authority, but the true text is “like gold” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions. In 10 “have,” not “had “; also the true text as in the Complutensian is “and stings” &c., as in the Revised Version, according to the best authorities. In 11 “They have over them as king the angel” &c. is the correct rendering. In 12 “the first” woe is right. In 13 the omission of “four” is questionable. In 14 “one” saying seems uncalled for, even on the critical reading; but “at,” not “in.” In 15 “the” hour, &c. In 16 “armies” is correct, “and” to be omitted. In the latter part of 17 as of 19 the present is well. In 19 “their” should be “of the horses.” In 20 and 21 the force is given more literally.