Early Versions on Revelation 16:5

Metzger's "The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations," provides a helpful overview of the versional evidence that can sometimes attest to a particular Greek Vorlage behind the translation.

Metzger's taxonomy provides a useful skeleton:

1. Syriac (link to my analysis)
2. Coptic (link to my analysis)
3. Armenian (link to my analysis)
4. Georgian (link to my analysis)
5. Ethiopic (link to my very detailed analysis)
6. "Minor Eastern" Versions
1. Arabic  (see discussion here)
2. Nubian (Revelation fragments exist, but not of Revelation 16:5)
3. Persian (Only a portion of Psalms remains, apparently, from Pre-Islamic times)(see more here)
4. Sogdian (Revelation fragments apparently don't exist)
5. Caucasian Albanian (Revelation is not part of the extant copies)
7. Latin
1. Vetus Latina 
2. Vulgate
8. Gothic (Current reconstruction of Gothic Bible does not include Revelation)
9. Old Church Slavonic (link to my analysis)
10. "Minor Western" Versions (None of these include Revelation, however) 
1. Anglo-Saxon  
2. Old High German 
3. Old Saxon

As can be gleaned from the links above, we have already discussed the Ethiopic (Ge'ez) version at length, as also the Old Latin versions and the Vulgate in a variety of videos (mostly stemming from the usage of less literal Latin translations).  

Jerome's Vulgate at Revelation 16:5

Jerome (c.345 to 420) was one of the most influential Bible translators of history.  His translation of the Old and New Testaments (as well as the apocrypha) became the dominant Latin translation, despite the existence of several Latin translations before him.  Thus, particular attention has been paid to reconstructing the text of Jerome's translation.

The German Bible Society has published Robert Weber's recension prepared by Roger Gryson.

For reference, at Revelation 11:17 they have: "dicentes gratias agimus tibi Domine Deus omnipotens que es et qui eras quia acceptisti virtutem tuam magnam et regnasti".  They note that the Clementine Vulgate adds "et qui uenturus es"

At Revelation 15:4 they have: "quis non timebit Domine et magnificabit nomen tuum quia solus pius quoniam omnes gentes venient et adorabunt in conspectu tuo quoniam iudicia tua manifestata sunt"

At Revelation 16:5 they have: "et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem iustus es qui es et qui eras sanctus quia haec iudicasti".  They note that the Clementine Vulgate adds "domine" after "iustus es".

For comparison's sake, the New Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) has:

Revelation 11:17 

dicentes:

“ Gratias agimus tibi,

Domine, Deus omnipotens,

qui es et qui eras,

quia accepisti virtutem tuam magnam et regnasti.

Revelation 15:4

Quis non timebit, Domine,
et glorificabit nomen tuum?
Quia solus Sanctus,
quoniam omnes gentes venient
et adorabunt in conspectu tuo,
quoniam iudicia tua manifestata sunt ”.

Revelation 16:5

Et audivi angelum aquarum dicentem: “ Iustus es, qui es et qui eras, Sanctus, quia haec iudicasti;

Vetus Latina at Revelation 16:5

Roger Gryson has done incredible work in reconstructing the Old Latin versions (plural).  The versions that Gryson focuses on in Revelation have either sanctus or prius or both of those or iustes.

(source)

At Revelation 16:5, the Old Latin testimony is similarly varied but clear:

(source)

Again, hosios gets rendered as either pius or sanctus.  Where there is more variety is in the rendering of the two articular verbs ("the Being One" and "The Having-Been One").  

As Revelation 11:17 is also of interest, and because it contains the same Greek verbs, it makes sense to also note that the same kinds of variety appear at Revelation 11:17 (including, naturally, omitting the "is to come" reference in several Old Latin versions:

(source)

Syriac at Revelation 16:5

In 2014, Gorgias Press published, "The Syriac Bible with English Translation: Revelation," with the English translation by Jerome A. Lund, and the text prepared by George A. Kiraz.  The translations of 11:17 (reflecting the non-insertion of "the coming one"), 15:4 (for a comparison translation of hosios) and 16:5 are of particular interest.

At 11:17 (p. 63), Lund translates:

saying: "We thank you, O Lord God, ruler of all, who is and was, because you have assumed your great power and begun reigning.

At 15:4 (p. 83), Lund translates: 

Who should not fear you, O Lord, and glorify your name, for you alone are pure? For all the nations shall come and worship before you, for you are upright."

Similarly, at 16:5 (p. 85), Lund translates:

Then I heard the angel of the waters say: "You, he who is and was, even the pure one, are righteous, because you judged these,

I don't reproduce the Syriac text from the Gorgias Press' work here, because the text itself was published over a century ago.

The New Testament in Syriac (1905-1920)

For Revelation 16:5

(p. 187, 358/372)

Although I claim no expertise in Syriac, it appears that the text of George A. Kiraz is the same as that of the 1905 edition (perhaps with minor orthographic/font changes).

For Revelation 11:17:

(p. 183, 354/372)

Once again, the Syriac text (as expected) seems to be the same.

As p. iv of the 1905 publication and p. XIII of "The Syriac Bible with English Translation," make clear (and the Gorgias Press edition likewise reiterates), the text is based on a single Syriac manuscript.  Rev. John Gwynn, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Dublin transcribed the text and made various minor improvements to it (more details can be found in TSBwET - but these do not affect Revelation 11:17 or Revelation 16:5).  

Dr. Gwynn provided a presumed Greek Vorlage corresponding to the Syriac.   

(p. cxxiv, 134/318)

Revelation 11:17

(p. 23, 180/318, left column)

Revelation 16:5

(p. 31, 188/318, right column)

Revelation 4:8

(p. 9, 166/318, right column)

(p. 10, 168/318, left column)

I also looked at some older Syriac printed editions, but I'm not sure that they add anything.

Novum Testamentum Syriace denuo recognitum atque ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum emendatum (1816)

Revelation 16:5

(p. 540, 552/573)(Right column)

(p. 540, 552/573)(Left column)

(right column portion, annotated)

Revelation 11:17

(p. 534, 546/573, right column)

Reformation Era (Broadly Speaking) Bibles at Revelation 16:5

Italian (discussed here - with discussion of French)

Dutch (discussed here)

Arabic (discussed here)

Swedish

- Gustav Vasa Bible 1541 

(vol. 1, p. CLXI (verso), pdf page 761)

- Gustavus Adolphus Bible (1618)  (Could not locate - link to cover - link to many artistic aspects) According to reports, it has some updating wording and adds verse divisions, but does not change the text substantially.  

Welsh

Welsh (1588)

William Morgan (1545-1605) translated the Bible into Welsh from Hebrew and Greek (link to page).

(p. 553r, left column)

Ac mi a glywais angel y dyfroedd yn dywedyd, O Arglwydd, yr wyt yn gyfiawn, yr hwn sydd, ac yr hwn a fuost y Sanctaidd, oherwydd i ti farnu y pechau hyn.

The Welsh, "y Sanctaidd" means "the holy one."

Finnish 

Finnish (1642)

(p. 712, verso, right column, lower half)

"ja Pyhä" = "and Holy"

Finnish (1685) 

(p. 302, pdf image 326)

Same as above, 1685 Finnish has "and Holy"

Romanian

New Testament of Alba Iulia (1648)

(p. 315v ("ТЄІ"), image 644/678)

For Comparison, here's the 1895 New Testament (apparently as printed in 1921):

(Sfânta Scriptura a Vechiului si Noului Testament, p. 278, image 1160/1172)

The 1895 differs in a few ways from the 1648, not the least of which is the change of alphabet.  More significant to our point, the 1895 corrects the mis-insertion of "Lord" and uses an equivalent of "Holy One" (Cuviosule), rather than what appears to be the equivalent of "and which shalt be".  

Transcription: "și carele vei fi" (lit. and which you will be)

The Cornilescu 1924 re-inserts "Lord" and uses "You are Holy": "5 Şi am auzit pe îngerul apelor zicând: „Drept eşti Tu, Doamne, care eşti şi care erai! Tu eşti Sfânt, pentru că ai judecat în felul acesta." (Compare a modern version that does not insert "Lord")

Irish 

An Biobla Naomhtha (1690)

(image 1060/1072) 

"agus bhias" seems to be "and who shall be"

1817 edition, same text, but easier to read:

(p. 1108, image 1116/1134)

(various Irish translations here)

Georgian Bible at Revelation 16:5

Joseph Molitor provided a Latin translation of the critical Georgian Bible, prepared (as best I understand) by Ilia Imnaišvili in The Apocalypse of John and Its Commentary (in Georgian, Tblisi or Tiflis 1961).  Locating the actual Georgian version of this work has proven beyond my capabilities so far.  

The text is based on three manuscripts going back to the 10th century:

Oriens Christianus, Fourth Series, Band 50, (1966), p. 2

Manuscript A+ is dated to precisely 978, whereas B+ is "tenth century" (i.e. the same century as A+) and C+ is dated to the 12th century.  

The translation was released across more than one band of Oriens Christianus.  Revelation 16 is in the second part.

Oriens Christianus, Fourth Series, Band 51, (1967), p. 19

As you can see, the text has "holy" and does not have any reference to "shall be."  Interestingly (to me at least), the "Lord" insertion is not in two of the manuscripts.

As the Georgian text is associated with the Andreas commentary, one assumes that the text goes back to Andreas like the Greek Andreas manuscripts.

Gorgias Press has helpfully published, "Collected Papers in Greek and Georgian Textual Criticism," with D.C. Parker and D.G.K. Taylor as editors, as part of "Text and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, Third Series, Volume 3.  J. Neville Birdsall is the author of the various papers in the volume, although he passed away during the production of volume (p. xiv).

Birdsall provides some valuable observations regarding the Georgian version of Revelation at pp. 161-172.  Two of the three manuscripts have a colophons (different from each other) requesting prayers for Euthymius, the translator of the work (p. 162).  This appears to be the same Euthymius who was one of the founders of the Iberon monastery on Mt. Athos (p. 163).  This Euthymius lived from 955 to 1024 (as distinct from Euthymius the Great (377 – 473)).  Birdsall provides the legendary account of how Euthymius reputedly lost his childhood knowledge of Georgian after learning Greek, then relearned Georgian, and finally obtained fluency in Georgian by "the intervention of the Blessed Virgin" (p. 163).  In all three manuscripts, the text of Revelation is followed by the commentary of Andreas (p. 162), which suggests the conclusion that the Georgian is a 10th century witness to a then-extant Greek Andreas commentary manuscript.

It seems that Birdsall was able to read Imnaišvili's work and evaluate it, at least to some extent.  Ultimately, while Prof. Molitor expresses a view that the Georgian was derived from Syriac-Armenian influence, Birdsall comes to the conclusion that the Georgian is instead drawn from the Armenian and/or Syriac (p. 172). Nevertheless, Prof. Molitor's glossary of Georgian words used in the New Testament remains a priceless treasure for "Western" scholars who are not native speakers of Georgian (per Birdsall, p. 163).

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.