Diodati's Versions at Revelation 16:5

Jean Diodati was born in Geneva to a family exiled from Italy for being Protestants.  He became a professor of Hebrew at 21 years old (at Beza's recommendation), and in 1609 he succeeded Beza as professor of theology in Geneva.  He attended the Synod of Dordt and was one of the six men who drew up the Canons of Dordt.

At Revelation 16:5, Diodati's 1607 Italian Bible has:

(p. 309, 1228/1234)

In his 1641 edition, Diodati's Italian Bible has this:

(p. 325)

Diodati's Annotations were translated into English (much as were the annotations of the Dutch State Bible).  His annotations (translated) are these:

(link)

It's worth noting that Diodati while he reads "Holy" in both Revelation 15:4 and Revelation 16:5, does not make the connection between them, and does not recognize that hosios is for hesed not qadosh.

Diodati's Italian Bible was apparently well-received in Geneva -- in fact it is still what he is best known for today.  He wanted to do the same for the French Bible, but this was not well-received, presumably because of a much stronger emotional attachment to the existing French Bible.  B. M. Armstrong provides a fascinating account of the struggles Diodati faced. (See "Geneva and the Theology and Politics of French Calvinism: the Embarrassment of the 1588 Edition of the Bible of the Pastors and Professors of Geneva," pp. 113-33, in Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos (1982).

The 1588 Geneva Bible, edited by Theodore Beza himself, has a lovely Psalter (with metrical Psalms prepared in part by Beza) and at Revelation 16:5 has the following:

(p. 131, image 1397)

I think it's worth noting that even Beza himself (like the Dutch State Bible) has "Holy" in the margin.

Diodati's French Bible finally was published in 1644. At Revelation 16:5 he has:

(p. 393)

In short, Beza's successor in Geneva did not accept Beza's change to Revelation 16:5 and both in his Italian and French Bibles maintained respectively the Italian and French words for "Holy".

In 1645, Diodati resigned his professorship.  He went to be with the Lord in 1649.  As you may recall, Francis Turretin became the professor of theology at Geneva in 1653.

Arabic Bibles at Revelation 16:5

For reasons that probably don't need to spelled out, the Arabic Bible has had a complex transmission history.  Pre-Islamic Arabic translations do not seem to exist.  Islamic era Arabic translations are seemingly from multiple different translations, and those translations may be from the Greek or - more likely - from a Coptic translation of the Greek.  Existing manuscripts of Arabic Revelation do not seem to be well studied -- at least I could not find a definitive critical edition of Arabic Revelation.  I anticipate that this may change in the future, as there is continuing scholarly interest in the Arabic Bible, and scholarly attention should eventually arrive on Revelation.

Accordingly, we are left with a survey of notable printed Arabic texts, which begin in the 17th century (though presumably based on manuscripts before that time).  Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament, states: "The variety of Arabic versions of the New Testament is almost bewildering." (p. 260) And again, he writes: "It should also be mentioned that all of the four Arabic versions of the Book of Revelation, which was not regarded as canonical in the East, are of Coptic origin."(p. 265)

Erpenius (1616):

(pp. 635-636)

And the third angel poured his bowl solidly upon the rivers and springs of water, so they became blood. And I heard the voice of the angel of the waters saying: "You are just, O Lord, and righteous in judgments, for you were and are. Because you have judged these ones, for the blood of the martyrs and prophets they poured out, and you have given them blood to drink because they are worthy." And I heard an altar speaking loudly, saying: "Yes, O Lord God, Almighty of all."

My suspicion is that this may be a fresh Arabic translation from the Latin Vulgate.  Others have suggested that the Vorlage was a Coptic edition.  In any event, the "righteous in your judgments" points us back to an ultimate Greek exemplar with the word hosios.

Paris Polyglot (1630/1633, not sure which date is accurate here)

(Latin translation of Greek | Greek)

(Latin translation of Arabic)

(p. 763)

(Syriac | Latin Translation of the Syriac)

(Arabic)

(p. 762)

It is difficult to translate Arabic (particularly if one doesn't speak Arabic).  The Latin translation provided reads: And I heard the angel of the waters saying: "Just you are O Eternal One, Oh Chosen One, because thus you have judged in these."  However, I think that the "Oh Chosen One" is a mistranslation for "O Pure One," representing a Coptic Vorlage with a Coptic intended equivalent of hosios.

Walton's Polyglot (1657)

Walton's Polyglot has essentially the same Arabic and Latin as the Paris Polyglot (per Metzger: "The Arabic version of the Paris Polyglot was reprinted, with minor alterations in text and Latin translation, in Walton’s London Polyglot (1657). In the work on the Arabic text the editor was assisted by Edward Pococke, who also revised the Latin translation of the Arabic." The Early Versions of the New Testament, p. 266):

(p. 965, 234/300)

Biblia Arabica of 1671

(p. 274, 474/638)

According to Metzger (p. 266), this version although initially based on Arabic manuscripts (at least in part), it was brought into conformity with the Latin Vulgate (it was a publication of the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith).  Thus, from a textual critical standpoint it is not particularly useful.

A 1703 edition apparently provided a slightly different recension of that Erpenius (the text can apparently be found here). This one also had Roman Catholic involvement (read control), however.

Some Additional Commentaries and the Moffatt Translation of Revelation 16:5

In the following, I've provided a smattering of additional commentaries on Revelation, with a focus on Revelation 16:5, as usual.  This is in preparation for an upcoming debate on Revelation 16:5 with an advocate for the King James Version's adoption of Beza's substitution of "shall be" for "O Holy One."

Swete

Henry Barclay Swete (1835-1917) was the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and is known for his 1906 commentary on Revelation, but also (at least by me) for his work on the Septuagint.  

Swete provides a chapter on use of the Old Testament in Revelation.  Unsurprisingly, he connects Revelation 1:4 to Exodus 3:14.  More interesting was his connection between Revelation 16:5 and Psalm 145:17.

(p. cxxxv, 150/578)

(p. cxliv, 160/578)

At Revelation 1:4, Swete explains the relationship of "the Being One" to Exodus 3:14, and also suggests that the coming of God is the reason for "the Coming One":

(p. 5, left column, 240/578)

(p. 5, right column, 240/578)

At Revelation 11:17, Swete correctly avoids inserting "the coming one":

(p. 140, 376/578)

(p. 140, left column, 376/578)

Likewise, at Revelation 16:5, Swete avoids Beza's substitution.  In terms of the word hosios itself, Swete tackles the interesting to me, if seemingly picayune, question of whether it should have the article or not, as well as the more interesting question of whether o hosios should be taken as a vocative, "O Holy One," as many translations now have.  

(p. 199, 434/578)

(p. 199, left column, 434/578)

(p. 199, right column, 434/578)

At Revelation 15:4, Swete has a fascinating discussion of the song of Moses and the lamb, which includes a discussion of hosios.  In the interest of minimizing unnecessary transcription, I have both screenshots and links to Swete's impressive tome.

(p. 193, left column, 428/578)

(p. 193, right column, 428/578)

(p. 194, left column, 430/578)

(p. 194, right column, 430/578)

Steele

David Steele, Sr. (1803 – 1887) was a Reformed Presbyterian (aka Covenanter) minister of the "Old Light" variety.  His "Notes on the Apocalypse," has been described as "perhaps the best medium-size historicist commentary on the book of Revelation." (source)  The only relevant remark he offers at Revelation 16:5 is this: "The eternal Jehovah is recognized as the Author of these judgments" (link to page).   

Missler

Dr. Chuck Missler (1934 – 2018) in his commentary on Revelation briefly discusses the textual issue

(link to clip)

Here's a transcription: 

I heard the angel of the water say thou art righteous O Lord which art and wast and shalt be because thou hast judged thus. The Greek leaves out the "shall be." It's an existing one, who was, and the Holy One," and so forth. There's no point in speaking of the one that as if he shall come that's just that's a translational issue.

I think that Pastor Missler is more or less summarizing whatever commentary he is working from on this matter.  It's less a translation issue and more of a text issue, however.

Hendricksen

William Hendricksen, More than Conquerors  (1940; London: Tyndale Press, 1962)

Hendricksen does not explicitly discuss the textual issue at Revelation 16:5.  However, he explains the non-insertion of "the coming one" at Revelation 11:17:

(p. 133, 136/224)

Observe that in this anthem the Lord is no longer called ‘the One who is and who was and who is to come’, as in 1:8, for He has come. The Church rejoices in the fact that the Lord has reached the zenith of His power and authority, now publicly displayed. The heathen were furious; they had made war with the witnesses, conquered them, killed them, and gloated over their misery (11:7 ff.). But at last God’s wrath became fully revealed, namely, on the day of final judgment which has now arrived. On that same day all those who fear the Lord receive their reward, while the destroyers are destroyed (cf. Mt. 25: 31 ff.).

When it comes to Revelation 1:4, Hendricksen oddly seeks to defend John's grammar by insisting that it is good Greek! 

(p. 53, 56/224)

Moffatt's translation has: 

Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches in Asia: grace be to you and peace from HE WHO IS AND WAS AND IS COMING, and from the seven Spirits before his throne,

Revelation 1:8 "I am the alpha and the omega," saith the Lord God, who is and was and is coming, the almighty.

Revelation 4:8 The four living Creatures, each with six wings apiece, are full of eyes all over their bodies and under their wings, and day and night they never cease the chant, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God almighty, who was and is and is coming."

Revelation 11:17 saying, "We thank thee, Lord God almighty, who art and wast, that thou hast assumed thy great power and begun to reign;

Revelation 16:5 Then I heard the angel of the waters cry, "O holy One, who art and wast, just art thou in this thy sentence.

Moreover, Moffatt's translation received a corresponding commentary by Martin Kiddle:

Kiddle

The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, based on The New Translation, by the Rev. Professor James Moffatt, D.D. and under his Editorship, The Revelation of St. John, by Martin Kiddle.

At Revelation 1:4, Kiddle writes (p. 7):

Following usage, John points to the attribute of God which he wishes to stress: HE WHO IS AND WAS AND IS COMING: or, in other words, the Eternal, whose advent into the Empires of Time was so near. (The usual term had been : "He who is and was and shall be.') Similar though more curious testimony to John's extreme reverence for God is borne by the deliberately ungrammatical ' from He. . . .' Even a paraphrase of the name of the unchanging God must be preserved from declension ! 

Kiddle's "ungrammatical" claim, while it clashes with Hendricksen's, is unsurprising.  More surprising is his (seemingly unsupported and wrong) claim that "the usual term had been ... and shall be"(!)

At Revelation 4:8, Kiddle writes: (p. 92):

There is a hint even in chap. iv. of the eschatological emphasis which John is to place on them. Instead of crying out with Isaiah's seraphs :

' Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, his majestic splendour fills the whole earth ! '

they chant the trisagion to a God whose majestic splendour is as yet deliberately withheld from the earth ; one who has deliberately limited His realm, so that He must be hymned as 'the coming One,' the Eternal, whose full sovereignty in the universe yet lies in the future : he who is and was and is coming (cf . note on i. 8) .

At Revelation 11:17, Kiddle explains the non-insertion of "the Coming One" on the grounds that he has come (p. 208):

The song of the four and twenty Presbyters (see note on iv. 4) takes up the theme announced by the loud voices. These angelic beings cast aside their royal state to pay homage to the Lord God almighty, who has begun to reign. No longer is He the Lord ' who is and was and is coming ' (i. 8, iv. 8) ; He has come, and the Presbyters now cry : ' Lord God almighty, who art and wast. . . .' 

At Revelation 16:5, Kiddle explains the principle of justice behind the punishment, but without comment on the textual issue that has been our focus. Nevertheless, Kiddle provides an interesting parallel to Wisdom (pp. 318-319):

There are no literal seas of blood in the records of history. But what limitless pages of agony and distress ! If we cannot see eye to eye with John over the means by which he imagined God would usher in a new reign of righteousness, if we cannot refrain from protesting that the Creator of men must cast aside His experiment without vengefulness, without taunting men with His omnipotence, without the clamour and demonstration of the seven last plagues, we can at least agree in part with the thought that lies behind the terrible cry of the angel of the waters : ' O holy One . . . just art thou in this thy sentence. They poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink ! ' As they deserve ! The underlying thought is that men are to receive punishment appropriate to their crime : experience has an abundant store of examples to prove to whatever nation cares to pay heed that communities do suffer proportionately to their crimes, and that often enough there is a grim and obvious aptness in the ill effect of an ill cause. (For comment on the angel of the waters, see p. 152.) This is a theme which recurs several times in the Book of Wisdom in connexion with idolatry. 'By what things a man sinneth, by these he is punished' (Wisd. xi. 16). In the same chapter we find the probable source of this incident in Revelation. For the author, in pointing out the contrast between the sufferings of the Israelites in the desert and the sufferings of the Egyptians, connects the plague of blood with the impious legislation of Pharaoh :

'When the enemy were troubled with clotted blood instead of a river's ever-flowing fountain, To rebuke the decree for the slaying of babes. Thou gavest them abundant water beyond all hope.'

(Wisd. xi. 6-7.)

Mauro 

Philip Mauro, Of Things which Soon Must Come to Pass: a Commentary on the Book of Revelation  (1933)  

At Revelation 1:4, Mauro writes (pp. 51-52):

1. God is here presented as the eternally self-existent One, the words, "He Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come", being an amplified statement of the ineffable Name of Exodus 3:14. It is there rendered, "I AM THAT I AM" ; but the sense of eternal existence, past and future, is implied in the original Hebrew words.

"The idea of pure, absolute, unchangeable existence, as expressed in the name Jehovah, is quite a practical one. The people of Israel, in asking for His name, were to find in it a pledge and security for what was to be performed by Him, for His wonderful help in the most distressful circumstances ; not what would merely satisfy their metaphysical curiosity. The name Jehovah comprises in itself the fulness of all consolation, mid the treasures thereof are here brought up from their depths and are placed before the eyes of believers, the seer's companions in the Kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. Against this I Rock of the pure, unchangeable, absolute Being of God, dash all the despairing thoughts of those happy ones who can call] this God their own, as also all the proud thoughts of the world which has Him for its enemy" (Hengstenberg).

Mauro uses the KJV reading of Revelation 16:5 (at p. 466), but does not have any particularly relevant comments there or at Revelation 11:17.

Charles

R.H. Charles, A Critical & Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Revelation, vol. 1 (1-13), 2 (14-22)  1920  in The International Critical Commentary.

Charles, at Revelation 1:4 explains the grammar and meaning of the text (vol. I, pp. 10-11)

At Revelation 4:8, Charles comments on the Old Testament and compares Revelation to the LXX text (vol. I, p. 127)

At Revelation 11:17, Charles explains that "the coming one" is not inserted because it has been fulfilled (vol. I, p. 295):

Charles engages in form criticism of Revelation, and so has moved 16:5b-17 to after 19:4 (vol. II, p. 44):

Thus, Charles final gets to the text later, where he debates the question of whether the text should be vocative (vol. II, p. 123):

You may note that he suggests Trench's work on the relation of dikaios and hosios in Classical Greek. 

Elliott

E.B. Elliott – Horae Apocalypticae: A Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical, Including also an Examination of the Chief Prophecies of Daniel…, vols. 1-4  2nd ed.  (1846).  

Spurgeon reportedly described this massive work as, “The standard work on the subject.” Elsewhere (link), this has been described as "he most exhaustive historicist defense and exposition of the Book of Revelation, building upon all the commentators before him."

In volume 2, at Revelation 11:17, Elliott brackets "art to come" and points out that two early manuscripts lack this phrase (vol. 2, p. 488):

In volume 3, at Revelation 16:5, Elliott does not follow Beza's substitution (vol. 3, p. 321):

Elliott explains that two textual critics had hosios rather than esomenos (vol. 3, p. 327):

Elliot goes on to explain the significance of "Holy One" (vol. 3, pp. 333-334):

Scroggie

William G. Scroggie, The Great Unveiling: an Analytical Study of Revelation  (1920; Zondervan, 1979) does not have much to say about the subject.  The closest I could find is from page 48:

Barnhouse

Donald G. Barnhouse, Revelation: an Expository Commentary, God’s Last Word (1971) provides a Reformed and Presbyterian take on the book of Revelation. 

At Revelation 1:4, Barnhouse opines (p. 20):

The book of Revelation takes us to God in an entirely different way from that in which He is approached in the Gospels, the Acts, the epistles; in short, in any other New Testament book. Here we have an Old Testament approach. God is spoken of as “the One who is and who was and who shall come.” This phrase is not to be found elsewhere in the New Testament. We take a concordance and are led immediately to God’s revelation of His Name, Jehovah. Here stands the great I AM who revealed Himself to Moses. It is a well-known fact that the name of Jehovah is made up of parts of three words. We are all of us familiar with the modern trade custom which takes the initials of a firm or the syllables from the names of different men and combines these letters or syllables to make a patent trade name for a product. This can give us a glimmer of light into the meaning of the name Jehovah. The three tenses of the verb “to be” are called into play—‘“I was, I am, I shall be.” A part of each of these three words is put together to form the name Jehovah.

Here, then, in the book of Revelation, we find the fulfillment, the capstone of Old Testament revelation. God speaks as the One who is and who was and who shall come. It should be noted in passing that it is not “who shall be,” for the theme of the book of Revelation is not merely the future eternal being of God but the future definite coming back to earth of God. So this name is in perfect harmony with the book it opens which will unfold for us the activity of God as He puts out His hand in government upon Israel and upon the world and upon the church organization insofar as it is a system in the world.

This discovery of the use of the Old Testament name of God in the opening paragraphs of this last of the New Testament books should lead us to a realization of one of the two methods of study which will simplify the understanding of this Book.

It is interesting to me that although Barnhouse reads "the coming one" as "who shall come," he is insistent on distinguishing the coming of God from "shall be."

At Revelation 11:17, Barnhouse points out that the "is to come" in the KJV is the result of copyist error, and its absence in the earliest manuscripts is proof of Scripture's accuracy (p. 209):

 “We give thanks to Thee, O Lord God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because Thou hast taken Thy great power and dost reign.” It should be noted that the clause “and art to come” is not in the original. It was probably added by come copyist and thus crept into some of the later “manuscripts, but the best authorities omit it. And certainly it should be omitted. Its absence in the oldest manuscripts is another proof of the detailed accuracy of the whole of the Bible revelation.

At Revelation 16:5, Barnhouse comments on the correct wording of the text (p. 292):

The angel speaks of the Lord as the One “which art and wast.” The Greek definition leaves out the words which have been added in the King James Version. There is no point in speaking of the One who shall come. He has already come at the time this prophecy is fulfilled. Instead of any phrase which speaks of the future work of God, the Greek gives Him a title here which points to His holiness. He is, in fact, called the Holy One. The whole phrase reads, “the existing One, the One who was, the Holy One.” The choice of holiness among all the attributes of God is indicative of the effect these judgments produce upon the Heavenly beings who observe them. Let sinful men talk against God because the Bible teaches that there is to be an eternal punishment, and because He speaks of judgment in terms of fire and tribulation. The angelic beings who cover their faces in the presence of God, and who hasten to do His will, have long known that the world is ripe for judgment. When it comes at long last, they are the first to acknowledge that it was deserved, and that the holiness of God is now manifested, just as the death of the Lord Jesus was the highest manifestation of the justice and righteousness of God.

Barnhouse's appeal to "The Greek definition," is an interesting way of saying that the Greek manuscripts have different words from the KJV.  

Consulted without finding relevant material

C. J. Vaughan, Lectures on the Revelation of St. John (1861 1st ed., 1882 2nd ed.)

Not consulted/reviewed

Rogers, George – Lectures on the Book of Revelation (1844) Four volumes, but I could not locate an online copy.

Barclay, William – The Revelation of John, vol. 1 (1-5), 2 (6-22)  in The Daily Bible Study Series  rev. ed.  (1961; Westminster Press, 1976)

Reading of Revelation 16:5 in Dutch Bibles

From what I can see, it seems that the Dutch Bible developed along a branched path (I'm focusing here on the printed editions - there does not seem to have been any complete Dutch Bible before the printing press - nor even a single standard Dutch language.).  From 1526-46 were the "twenty glorious years" of Dutch Bible production.  Jacob van Liesvelt and Willem Vorsterman competed with one another in the Bible market (there is a fascinating article with more detail here).

Vorstermanbijbel (1528/1531) (link to page)

Apparently, the text of the Vorstermanbijbel may have been based on the Complutensian Polyglot, according to the article linked above. The same article notes that there were some changes in the various Vorsterman Bible editions (including differences between 1528 and 1531 - I have not verified whether the image above is from the former or latter date).  However, the intent of the publisher seems to have been to align with the Vulgate, which may explain the more Latin-sounding reading of Revelation 16:5 with "was holy."

Liesveltbijbel (1542)(link to page)

You may notice that the Liesvelt Bible has "and holy," more closely matching the Greek.  However, this more close match is not necessarily a result of translating directly from the Greek, but rather from Luther's German Bible, which was from the Greek.

Leuvense bijbel (1548)(link to page)

The Leuven Bible, translated by Nicolaas van Winghe, became the standard Catholic Bible for the Netherlands for centuries.  This Bible (like Vorsterman's) provides a "were holy" reading, to align with Vulgate text.  There were ultimately (apparaently) fifty editions of the Leuven Bible from 1548 to 1846 (this was also known as the Moerentorf  Bible, because of the 1599 revision by Jan Moretus).  The replacement Roman Catholic version, the Professorenbijbel, was published between 1894-1911, but only included the Old Testament.  The Petrus Canisius translation of 1948 then provided a complete and more literal version.

Biestkensbijbel (1560)(link to page)

Nicolaes Biestkens aimed to provide a Bible for Mennonites, though Lutherans also used this Bible.  For Mennonites, this Bible was the most widely read until the eighteenth century, despite inroads made by the Statenvertaling.  It was the first Dutch Bible with numbered verses.

Deux-Aesbijbel (1562)(link to page)

Until the Statenvertaling, the Deux-Aesbijbel was the standard Bible for Dutch-speaking Reformed churches.  The nickname for this Bible comes from a marginal note on Nehemiah 3:5 that includes a saying by Martin Luther that utilized the numbers of a die (for what appears to me to be a pun - see here). 

Statenvertaling (1637)(link to page)

The "States Bible" aimed to provide a direct translation from the Greek (in the New Testament, and similarly from the original languages of the Old) rather than a translation from Latin or German.  

The annotations contained in the Statenvertaling were voluminous.  The English were interested in the wisdom of their Dutch brethren, and so commissioned an English translation of the Statenvertaling annotations, which annotations were published in 1657 (link).

At Revelation 1:4, the annotations read:

(image 942/966)

At Revelation 16:5, the annotations read:

(image 958/966)

Meanwhile, back in Holland, Adolph Visscher (1605-1652) led a committee that produced the Lutherse Vertaling (1648), which came to be known in Holland as the Visscher Bible ("Visscherbijbel")

(p. 129r, right column)

(p. 129v, left column)

The Visscher Bible replaced the Biestkensbijbel (1560), not by retranslating from the original languages (as with the Statenvertaling) but by correcting the Biestkensbijbel on the basis of the High German Luther Bible.  This became the standard Bible for the Lutherans in the Netherlands.

The Visscher Bible went under revisions in 1702, 1734, 1748, 1780, 1823 (apparently this was a significant revision), 1852, 1873, 1906, 1911, and 1939.  The revisions apparently were based on original languages, developments of the Dutch language, and attempts to harmonize toward the Statenvertaling.  In 1951, the Visscher Bible was replaced by a new translation, the NBG-vertaling 1951.

*** Appendix

1702

1734 (also includes an impressive Psalter!)

1748

1780 (Old Testament and Apocrypha, New Testament and Psalter)

1823 (Old Testament, Apocrypha, [could not locate New Testament]) 

[Perhaps to be completed at a later date.]

1852

1873

1906

1911

1939.