Libertarian Free Will and James White's Debate with AK Richardson

Did Dr. James R. White "concede" that Adam had Libertarian Free Will?  There was a moment in Dr. White's debate with AK Richardson, where AK asked whether Adam had free will.  Here is my transcript of the exchange: 

AK: Do you believe that if God purposes to design man with libertarian free will - as we call it - and then given the responsibility to believe can he do that if he wants. 

JRW: Yeah It didn't last long That was called Adam 

AK: Okay So so then if if so he did create Adam with libertarian free will So then you would concede--

JRW: But even then that libertarian free will existed under the decree of God because it was not God's purpose that Christ was not going to come The incarnation wasn't going to be ne necessary stuff like that. But Adam is completely different than we are Once the fall takes place we're in Romans 5.

AK: But you did affirm that he had libertarian free will?

JRW: Yes. As a creature. In other words he did not have a fallen nature. 

When Dr. White said "even then that libertarian free will existed under the decree of God," (link to clip) and again when Dr. White said, "in other words he did not have a fallen nature," (link to clip) it should have been apparent to the unbiased listener that Dr. White is speaking only of Adam having Freedom of Will in the sense of not being bound by a sin nature, and not of Adam having Freedom from God's Will.

So, no.  Dr. White was not saying that Adam had Libertarian Free Will in the sense that contemporary philosophers use that term (link), for example as in contrast with Compatible Free Will.  I would have preferred Dr. White to have clarified by saying "free will, not Libertarian Free Will."  However, I'm not the boss of him.  

For Dr. White, he felt it was sufficient to clarify that Adam had free will "as a creature" and more specifically as an "unfallen creature".  As he said a few seconds later:

AK: Let me ask you this way: You still you would believe then -- and you would agree -- that being libertarianly free does not in any way oppose God being sovereign? 

JRW: Libertarianly free as a creature. Adam's choices were limited. Adam could not libertarianly freely choose to fly. So he was a creature. He had that freedom within that realm as an unfallen creature.

(link to clip)

I realize that for a lot of folks, that segment of the debate was a "gotcha" moment, because of the more standard meaning of "Libertarian Free Will" in contemporary philosophical circles.  That said, it's worth observing that, to put it bluntly, that's not what Dr. White meant.

If AK had asked Dr. White the question: was the Fall foreordained by God? The answer would have been "yes," because Dr. White said that Adam's will "existed under the decree of God."

Hopefully this provides clarification for those who badly need clarification on this issue.

Revelation 16:5 Debate - Opening Argument

The following is my planned opening argument in the Revelation 16:5 debate:

The angel of the waters said (and John heard), “hosios” (or perhaps hesed) and John wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and command of Jesus Christ, “hosios.” Therefore, Beza was wrong to replace “hosios” with “esomenos,” and the King James translators ought not to have followed Beza’s reading.

Today’s debate is significant because of Revelation’s warning against adding to or diminishing from God’s word.  Today’s debate is also significant because this is one of the places where the evidence is overwhelmingly against the King James text.  In fact, unlike most textual variants, we can pinpoint the particular document that introduced this textual variant into the textual tradition: a manual markup by Theodore Beza of his own previous printed edition.  The external and internal evidence could hardly be any stronger than they are in this example.

The External Evidence

The overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts (including the four earliest manuscripts) have hosios.  The few that do not have hosios do not substitute esomenos for hosios.  

The same is true of the translations of the Bible before the age of printing: Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Multiple Old Latin translations, Jerome’s Vulgate, and Old Church Slavonic have an equivalent of hosios. There are two branches of Coptic, one of which has the equivalent of hosios, and one which does not. Likewise, Arabic appears to have the equivalent of hosios.  On the other hand, one Middle English version does not have the equivalent of hosios, but it also does not replace it with the equivalent of esomenos.

The same is true of the commentaries on the text.  The commentaries, whether in Greek or in any other language, either reflect the presence of the word hosios or, if they do not, do not reflect esomenos as a substitute for hosios. Aside from commentaries, there are no patristic quotations of the text of Revelation 16:5 (that I could find).  

In 1505, Erasmus published Lorenzo Valla’s comments on Revelation 16:5.  As published by Erasmus in 1505, Valla seems to be suggesting that his Greek manuscript of Revelation had hagios not hosios.  As there is no such manuscript tradition, my suspicion is that Valla (or Erasmus) had notes in Latin and back translated from sanctus to the more common Greek word hagios.

That’s not to suggest that there is no textual difficulty with hosios in Revelation 16:5.  There are a cluster of variant readings (all including hosios), presumably because using the adjective hosios with an article is not standard Greek.  This bothered Beza, who called attention to this issue when arguing for his substitution of esomenos for hosios.  This, of course, leads us to the question of the internal evidence.

The Internal Evidence

Revelation 13 had introduced to us that the Beast demanded everyone’s worship and killed those who didn’t worship him.  Revelation 14 warned of the coming judgment for the beast worshippers. Revelation 15 introduces seven angels with seven bowls full of the wrath of God. Revelation 16 then provides discussion of these seven angels pouring out these bowls of God’s wrath.  

Revelation 15:2-4 

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of [ages]. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

The word translated “holy” in “thou only art holy” is the word hosios.  It is the only other time that John uses the word hosios, and the word is only used a few other times in the New Testament:

[Act 2:27 KJV] 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One[G3741] to see corruption.

[Act 13:34-35 KJV] 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies[G3741] of David. 35 Wherefore he saith also in another [psalm], Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One[G3741] to see corruption.

[1Ti 2:8 KJV] 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy[G3741] hands, without wrath and doubting.

[Tit 1:8 KJV] 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy,[G3741] temperate;

[Heb 7:26 KJV] 26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy,[G3741] harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

It may not be immediately obvious, but hosios carries the sense of “keeping the covenant” (i.e. the same meaning as Hebrew hesed) or otherwise being “religiously correct.” That’s why the word is translated as “holy one” in Acts 2:27 and 13:35 but as “sure mercies” in Acts 13:34, both of which are quoting from the Old Testament where the Hebrew word is hesed or hasid (Psalm 16:10 “Holy One” (ḥāsîḏ) and Isaiah 55:3 “mercies” (ḥeseḏ)).  Paul and the author of Hebrews, not quoting from the Old Testament, use the word in its more general sense of religious correctness.

In context, in Revelation 15, the word hosios is connected with God’s covenant-keeping duty of bringing judgment on those who hurt his covenant people: as it is written, Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord, I will repay.  Thus, it does not carry its more general sense of religious correctness (as in the epistles), but rather to the covenantal relationship between God and His people.

In Revelation 16, the angels pour out their bowls of wrath.  The third angel is described this way:

Revelation 16:4-7 

And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. 5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, [[O Lord,]] which art, and wast, [[and shalt be O Holy One!]], because thou hast judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

The voice from the altar seems to allude to the martyrs mentioned with reference the fifth seal back in Revelation 6:9-11, where the martyrs “cried with a loud voice” for God’s vengeance and were located “under the altar.” 

[Rev 6:9-11 KJV] 9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

The parallel between “true and righteous [are] thy judgments” in Revelation 16 and “just and true [are] thy ways” in the song in Chapter 15 should immediately apparent. Others have noted additional parallels.  With that in mind, hosios in Revelation 16:5, while an usual word in itself, is the correct word to make the connection back to Revelation 15.

In addition, referring to God as the one who is Hosios here makes sense because this is the fulfillment of God’s promise of judgment on those who hurt His people.

There is an additional parallel problem to be addressed.  The phrase preceding hosios is found similarly in four other passages: Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 11:17 have the phrase, “ho on kai ho en,” and Revelation 4:8 has the phrase “ho en kai ho on.”  God as the “Being One” and “He who has been” are divine titles that, like ego eime (I AM) are connected to the tetragrammaton YHWH.  

In itself this, of course, would seem to be basically irrelevant to the wording here. What makes it more relevant is that Beza believed that in all four of those previous instances, the phrase had been followed by “ho erchomenos” (the Coming One).  It has been tempting to commentators to link the present participle and imperfect indicative of the verb “to be” together with “the coming one” to form a “past, present, future” set.  Moreover, the tetragrammaton has been taken by many as having, including, or at least being based on a future sense, “I shall be,” making some kind of reference to the future seem fitting.    

However, Beza was wrong to believe that all four previous instances were followed by the expression, “the coming one.”  Although a minority of manuscripts do have “the coming one” in Revelation 11:17, the majority of manuscripts (quite properly) do not have that title there.  The reason it is is proper not to have it there is that by Revelation 11, God has already come in judgment.  For the same reason, of course, such a title is not appropriate in the mouth of the angel in Revelation 16, because judgment has already begun to have been meted out.  

Beza recognized the impropriety of including ho erchomenos here, but still felt that it was not right to leave “the being one” and “He who has been” without a third partner, and so he substituted esomenos for hosios.  Beza’s annotations say that this is a reading that was “restored from an old reliable manuscript.”

Is it possible that such a manuscript once existed or even still exists somewhere? Many things are possible.  What is startling, however, is that no one who has collated manuscripts of Revelation (including Hoskier, who collated almost all the manuscripts that were known before World War II) has ever seen such a manuscript. On top of that, Beza is not known to have have personally possessed any Greek manuscripts of Revelation.  

Henry Stephanus collated manuscripts in that time, and seems to have provided collation notes to Theodore Beza.  However, while Stephanus’ published apparatus notes one textual variant at Revelation 16:5, this variant is not identified.  It is believed that Stephanus had additional textual variants noted in his unpublished collation notes, but that document itself seems to have been lost.

Ultimately, while it makes for an interesting historical question (whether Beza’s annotations mischaracterize the manuscript record), it’s essentially a moot point.  Even if such a manuscript existed, we would not find such a manuscript a persuasive reason to overturn all the rest of the manuscript and version tradition, nor would we find such a reading persuasive on internal grounds.

After all, the conjugation esomenos never appears in the New Testament. Septuagint Job seems to use the word once, but not as title of God.  The use of esomenos as potentially a divine title seems to have its origins in Christian adoption of Greek philosophy, particularly (in this instance) Plato’s Timaeus. Aldo Manuzio printed Plato’s collected works, first in 1513, even before Erasmus’ first edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516. We know that Beza read Plato.  Jeffrey Mallinson states: “Despite these negative sentiments, there are other instances in which Beza speaks positively of Plato.  This practice follows a Renaissance trend to harmonize Plato and Aristotle.  An important example of this harmonization is found in Jean de Serres’ … three-volume edition of the works of Plato, which contains translation and accompanying explanation of the text. … A Latin poem lauding Plato and de Serres, composed by Beza, is affixed to the first volume. Also, at de Serres’ request, Beza passed on a copy of the Platonis opera to Peter Young, tutor to Scotland’s James VI, and sent the work with a letter of recommendation.” Faith, Reason, and Revelation, Chapter 2 “Beza’s Academic Challenge” (p. 61)

I have argued for the propriety of the word "hosios" in Revelation 16:5, contending it was wrongly replaced with "esomenos" by Theodore Beza and subsequently adopted by the King James translators. The evidence presented includes the overwhelming support for "hosios" in early Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and commentaries, contrasted with Beza's singular alteration. Internally, "hosios" connects to its usage in Revelation 15 and other New Testament verses, emphasizing God's covenant-keeping and just judgment, aligning with the context of wrath being poured out in Revelation 16. Beza's substitution is traced to a potentially non-existent manuscript and his philosophical leanings, which are deemed less credible than the weight of existing textual evidence.

5 Million Blog Views - A Sincere Thank You!

Thanks to the many visitors to this blog over the past twenty years (or so) of operation.  I noticed a remarkable surge in visitors to the blog since the start of April, and I certainly appreciate all the extra attention.  The extra visits have moved the blog up to the 5 million views level, according to the site's statistics.

I hope that the blog continues to be a blessing to folks who visit.  

To God be the glory, both now and to the ages of ages.

Manetti's Revelation 16:5

Giannozzo Manetti (1396-1459) was one of the intellectual giants of the 15th century in the field of translation.  His translation of the New Testament remains (as far as I can tell) unpublished.  However, thanks to the digital age (and thanks to James Snapp pointing my way to the manuscripts), the manuscripts are available to view online.  At Revelation 16:5, Manetti has:

et audiui angelum quartum dicentem. Justus es domine qui es et qui eras Sanctus. quiaa hec iudicaste.

(162v)

(Urb.lat.6 250v)

The Greek from which Manetti was translating is known.  The Greek manuscript he used for Revelation 16:5 is this:

(Pal.gr.171 176r) aka GA 149 (15th century)

As you can see, the text here is:  ... ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος ...

Evidently, Manetti also had access to and relied upon a Vulgate manuscript:

(Pal. lat. 18 389v)

It is interesting how the "fourth angel" and "Lord" crept into Manetti's "translation" of the text here.

John Chrysostom and Jerome on Zechariah the son of Berechiah

Two theologians (contemporaries of one another and probably writing within the same decade or so) commented on Matthew 23:35 "Zacharias, the son of Barachias".  John Chrysostom, providing a homily, addresses the issue in a very summary way. 

John Chrysostom (c. 347 - 407), Homily 74 on Matthew (390-397):

But who is this Zacharias? Some say, the father of John; some, the prophet; some, a priest with two different names, whom the Scripture also calls, the son of Jehoiada.

By contrast, Jerome, writing a commentary, dives into much greater depth (footnotes are from the Fathers of the Church series)

Jerome (c. 347 - 420), Commentary on Matthew (398), Book Four, at 23:35-36 (pp. 266-68)

23.35-36. “That upon you may come all the just blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of just Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, who was murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Amen I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” There is no doubt that Abel is the one killed by his brother Cain.[FN40] He is acknowledged as just not only by the Lord’s judgment, but by the testimony of Genesis, where his gifts are described as having been accepted by God.[FN41] But we do need to ask who this Zechariah son of Barachiah is. For we read about many Zechariahs. He even removes the possibility of error for us by adding: “whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar.” I have read diverse things in diverse sources, and I ought to record the opinions of each of these. Some[FN42] say that Zechariah son of Barachiah is the eleventh of the twelve prophets. The name of his father is in agreement with this,[FN43] but the Scripture does not say when he was killed between the sanctuary and the altar, chiefly since in his time there were scarcely even ruins of the Temple. Others[FN44] want this Zechariah to be understood as the father of John.[FN45] They approve of certain daydreams from apocryphal writings that say that he was killed because he had predicted the Savior’s advent.[FN46] Since this view does not have the authority of the Scriptures, it is rejected with the same facility with which it is approved. Others[FN47] want this Zechariah to be the one who was killed between the sanctuary and the altar by Joash king of Judea, as the history of Kings narrates.[FN48] But one should observe that that Zechariah was not the son of Barachiah, but the son of Jehoiada the priest.[FN49] This is why the Scripture relates: “Joash did not remember the good deeds of Jehoiada his father, which he had done for him.”[FN50] Since, then, we should also retain Zechariah and the place of the killing is in agreement, we need to ask why he is called the son of Barachiah, and not of Jehoiada. Barachiah means “blessed of the Lord” in our language, and the justice of the priest Jehoiada is shown in the Hebrew language.[FN51] In the gospel that the Nazarenes use,[FN52] in place of “son of Barachiah” we have found it written: “son of Jehoiada.” Rather simple brothers point out reddish stones among the ruins of the sanctuary and the altar, or at the exits of the gates which lead to Siloam. They think that these were stained by the blood of Zechariah. We should not condemn their error, because it arises from their pious faith and from the malice of the Jews. We should briefly explain what he means when he says that the blood of just Abel until Zechariah son of Barachiah is required from this generation, seeing that [this generation] has put neither of them to death. The pattern of the Scriptures is to record two [kinds of] generations, [namely,] those who are good or those who are evil; that is, each generation is noted for the one or the other. Let us consider examples of the good: “Who ascends on the mountain of the Lord, or who rests on his holy mountain?”[FN53] And since he has described very many who would ascend the mountain of the Lord, who lived in various ages, afterward he adds: “This is the generation of those who seek the Lord, of those who seek the face of the God of Jacob.”[FN54] And in another passage it speaks of all the saints: “The generation of the just will be blessed.”[FN55] But of the evil it speaks as in the present passage: “A generation of vipers,” and “all things will be required of this generation.” And in Ezekiel, when he had described the sins of the land, the prophetic words added: “If Noah and Job and Daniel were found there, I would not forgive the sins of this land.”[FN56] By Noah, Job, and Daniel, he wants all the just to be understood, who are like them in their virtues. Therefore, even those who committed deeds against the apostles similar to [those of] Cain and Joash are referred to as being of a single generation.

Footnotes:

40. Cf. Gn 4.8.

41. Cf. Gn 4.5.

42. Cf. Origen, In Matth. comm. series, 25.

43. Cf. Zec 1.1.

44. Cf. Origen, In Matth. comm. series, 25.

45. Cf. Lk 1.5, 13.

46. Cf. Origen, In Matth. comm. series, 25; Epiphanius, Haer. 26.12.1-4. The apocryphal writing in question is the Genna Marias or “Birth of Mary,” also called The Protevangeliwm of James, which records that Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was murdered by the same Herod who ordered the slaughter of the babies at Bethlehem. Probably this legend was suggested by the reference in Matthew’s text. See Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NTA 1, 344-45; ANF 8, 366.

47. Cf. Origen, In Matth comm. series, 25.

48. Cf. 2 Chr 24.22.

49. Cf. 2 Chr 24.20. H. Ridderbos, Matthew, Bible Student's Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 433, thinks that the best explanation is to assume that the name of the prophet Zechariah's father was added later by an uninformed copyist.

50. 2 Chr 24.22.

51. Cf. De interpr. hebr. nom., p. 60 and p. 39.

52. See Pref., n. 6. It is interesting that immediately above this Jerome can condemn Origen (anonymously) for citing an apocryphal writing with approval, and then shortly thereafter cite one himself.

53. Ps 24.3.

54. Ps 24.6.

55. Ps 112.2.

56. Ezek 14.14.

*** 

TurretinFan's comments: 

Regarding footnote 54, it is less clear to me than to Thomas P. Scheck (the translator of the text and, I presume, author of the footnote) that Jerome is endorsing an apocryphal gospel, namely the Gospel of the Nazarenes.  Indeed, it seems that the majority of our information about this document comes from Jerome's references.

Regarding footnote 46, I agree with Scheck that Origen is likely the one in Jerome's sights for this error, and that both Origen and Tatian (who presumably influenced Epiphanius later) seem to have been influenced by the Protoevangelium of James.

Regarding footnote 49, it is interesting to note that one of the oldest copies of Matthew (codex Sinaiticus) omitted "son of Barachias" (although it was added to the margin by a corrector): 

My main reservations about this theory that the surname was added later by an uninformed copyist is that we appear to have multiple independent second-century attestation to the longer reading via Origen (c. 185 – c. 253)(Letter to Africanus), Tatian  (c. 120 – c. 180 AD)(Diatesseron), Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD)(Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 14)

Jerome on Haggai 1 and Sola Scriptura

In the following, please consider how Jerome contrasts arguments from Scripture with arguments from alleged Apostolic tradition.

Jerome on Haggai, Chapter 1, vss. 11-12: 

(Verse 11.)

And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the wheat, and upon the wine, and upon the oil, and upon whatever the ground brings forth, and upon men, and upon beasts, and upon all the labor of hands.

Concerning the drought, the Septuagint translated it as μαχαίραν (machairan), that is, a sword; but also in the Hebrew I found it written with three letters (ח ר ב), HETH, RES, BETH. If we read it as HAREB, it sounds like "sword"; if OREB, it means καύσωμα (kausōma) (or καῦμα (kauma)), which we have translated as "drought," although it might better be translated as "scorching wind."

And truly, since the discourse is about the land and the barrenness of the fields, it seems to me that in the present place a scorching wind ought to be understood rather than a sword — although any plague which is inflicted upon men because of sins can also be understood as a sword.

Therefore, the drought, or the sword, was called upon the land and upon the mountains, so that they might not produce wheat and wine and oil and whatever the ground naturally generates. After the famine comes first, consequently death comes upon men and upon beasts.

And the same sword or scorching wind consumes all that the hands of men have labored for. Therefore, the living word of God is called forth or brought forth, which is living, and effective, and sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4), so that the negligent soul (which is interpreted as dry land, and which desires rather to dwell in hollow places than to build the house of God) might be struck with its blade and whatever fruits it thinks it possesses might be destroyed.

A sword is also brought upon the mountains that lift themselves up against the knowledge of God, and upon the wheat and the wine and the oil — with which the gatherings of heretics flatter the deceived people, as though with food and drink and refreshment.

One might fittingly say that their bread is the bread of mourning, and that their wine is the fury of dragons and the incurable fury of asps. Also the oil — which is the promise concerning heavenly things, with which they anoint their disciples and promise the rewards of their labors — is detested by the prophet, who says:

"But the oil of a sinner shall not anoint my head" (Psalm 141:5).

And likewise, the other things which they discover and fabricate without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, as though by apostolic tradition, are struck down by the sword of God.

But let us take "men and beasts" to mean λογισμοὺς (logismous) and αἰσθήσεις (aisthēseis) — that is, their thoughts and senses — or certainly the rational and irrational in them, that is, both the learned and the unlearned alike.

And "all the labor of their hands" refers to their fastings and various observances and chameunias (chameunias) — that is, sleeping on the ground.

Those who fast during three Lents per year and humble their souls with ξηροφαγίαις (xērophagiais) — that is, eating dry foods — and who especially grow from the root of Tatian, hear concerning such labors:

"You have suffered so many things in vain" (Galatians 3:4).

But all these things that I have said can be understood concerning the rulers of the Church, who, building a carnal house and providing for their children and their possessions, do not care either to build the temple of God within themselves or to restore the Church of the Lord, which is uncovered and ruined.

The life and discordant speech of such men often scandalize many, cast them out of the Church, and lead the house of God into desolation.

But we do not say these things to accuse everyone generally, but because in every office and rank there are some who build and others who destroy the temple of God — and because of their fault, neither the dew of heaven comes down nor does the earth bring forth fruit; the ground dries up, the mountains become barren, the wheat and the oil and all that the earth produces perish, as do men themselves and beasts, and all the labor of hands is cut down and destroyed by the sword and the drought, or by the scorching wind.

(Latin can be found here)

Archbishop Averkii, on the Woman of Revelation 12

I shouldn't have to put a disclaimer like this, but since people sometimes misunderstand the purpose of a quotation, I will simply bluntly say that I'm not posting this as an endorsement of the work.  

Averky Taushev of Syracuse, Archbishop of Jordanville, (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) (1906-1976), wrote a commentary on Revelation.  The following is from Chapter 12, pp. 135-6, of "The Apocalypse of St. John: an Orthodox commentary." (available here)

CHAPTER TWELVE

THE THIRD VISION: THE BATTLE OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD WITH THE POWER HOSTILE TO IT OF ANTICHRIST: THE CHURCH OF CHRIST UNDER THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN TRAVAILING IN BIRTH

12:1-2 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Certain commentators have seen in this mystical woman the Most Holy Theotokos, but such outstanding commentators as St. Hippolytus, St. Methodius, and St. Andrew of Caesarea find that this is "the Church clothed in the Word of the Father, shining more brightly than the sun." This brilliance of the sun signifies likewise that she possesses the true knowledge of God and His laws and contains His revelations. The moon under her feet is a sign of the fact that she is above everything that changes. St. Methodius considers the moon allegorically as the "faith of those cleansed of corruption by the bath, that is, baptism, since upon the moon depends the nature of moisture."

On her head is a crown of twelve stars that, being originally gathered together from the twelve tribes of Israel, she subsequently was guided by the twelve apostles who comprise her light-bearing glory.

From the fact that she is in pain during childbirth, it is evident that it is incorrect to see in this woman the Most Holy Theotokos, for the giving birth from Her of the Son of God was without pain.

These torments of birthgiving signify the difficulties which had to be overcome by the Church of Christ when it was being established in the world (martyrdom, the spreading of heresies). At the same time it signifies, in the explanation of St. Andrew, that "the Church is pained for each one of those who is reborn by water and the Spirit until, as the divine Apostle has said, Christ shall be formed in them. St. Methodius says. "The Church is pained giving rebirth from natural to spiritual men and transforming them in appearance and image in the likeness of Christ" (St. Andrew, ch. 33).

Notice that Averkii is crystal clear that the woman is the Church, not Mary.

Calvin and Baruch

Did John Calvin think that Baruch was canonical Scripture?  This question came up during a recent episode of Dan and my podcast (link to episode).  After all, when responding to Trent (Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote), Calvin specifically observes that "Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books."  However, Calvin nowhere specifically identifies an issue with Trent's inclusion of Baruch.

Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians, at 1 Corinthians 10:19-24:

Some, however, understand the term demons here as meaning the imaginary deities of the Gentiles, agreeably to their common way of speaking of them; for when they speak of demons they meant inferior deities, as, for example, heroes, and thus the term was taken in a good sense. Plato, in a variety of instances, employs the term to denote genii, or angels. That meaning, however, would be quite foreign to Paul’s design, for his object is to show that it is no light offense to have to do with actions that have any appearance of putting honor upon idols. Hence it suited his purpose, not to extenuate, but rather to magnify the impiety that is involved in it. How absurd, then, it would have been to select an honorable term to denote the most heinous wickedness! It is certain from the Prophet Baruch, (4:7,) that those things that are sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to devils (Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 96:5.) In that passage in the writings of the Prophet, the Greek translation, which was at that time in common use, has δαιμόνια — demons, and this is its common use in Scripture. How much more likely is it then, that Paul borrowed what he says from the Prophet, to express the enormity of the evil, than that, speaking after the manner of the heathen, he extenuated what he was desirous to hold up to utter execration!

On the other hand, elsewhere - indeed in his most central work, Calvin acknowledges that the author is uncertain:

Calvin's Institutes, Chapter 20, Section 8:

For it was most truly and piously written by the uncertain author (whoever he may have been) that wrote the book which is attributed to the prophet Baruch,[FN: French, “Pourtant ce qui est escrit en la prophetie qu’on attribue à Baruch, combien que l’autheur soit incertain, est tres sainctement dit;”—However, what is written in the prophecy which is attributed to Baruch, though the author is uncertain, is very holily said.] “But the soul that is greatly vexed, which goeth stooping and feeble, and the eyes that fail, and the hungry soul, will give thee praise and righteousness, O Lord. Therefore, we do not make our humble supplication before thee, O Lord our God, for the righteousness of our fathers, and of our kings.” “Hear, O Lord, and have mercy; for thou art merciful: and have pity upon us, because we have sinned before thee,” (Baruch 2:18, 19; 3:2).

The most revealing treatment of Baruch, however, comes from Calvin's take on the end of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 51:64):

The Conclusion follows, Thus far the words of Jeremiah We have said that the prophets, after having spoken in the Temple, or to the people, afterwards collected brief summaries, and that these contained the principal things: from these the prophetic books were made up. For Jeremiah did not write the volume as we have it at this day, except the chapters; and it appears evident that it was not written in the order in which he spoke. The order of time is not, then, everywhere observed; but the scribes were careful in this respect, that they collected the summaries affixed to the doors of the Temple; and so they added this conclusion, Thus far the words of Jeremiah But this, in my view, is not to be confined to the prophecies respecting the fall of Babylon; for I doubt not but that the scribe who had collected all his prophecies, added these words, that he had thus far transcribed the words of Jeremiah.

We hence conclude that the last chapter is not included in the prophetic book of Jeremiah, but that it contains history only as far as was necessary to understand what is here taught: for it appears evident that many parts of the prophecy could not be understood without the knowledge of this history. As to the book of Lamentations, we know that it was a work distinct from the prophecies of Jeremiah: there is, then, no wonder that it has been added, Thus far the words of Jeremiah

This seems to make it clear that Calvin viewed Baruch as separate from Jeremiah, since Calvin even raises some question regarding chapter 52 of Jeremiah, and did not offer any further commentary on it (much less on Baruch).  It is also extremely hard to explain why Calvin would not offer a commentary on Baruch (without explanation) if he did consider it Scripture, although Calvin did not provide a commentary on Esther, though he almost certainly considered it Scripture.

One of the commenters then suggested that according to my logic, since Calvin did not comment on Revelation, he must not have considered it to be canonical.  This is an interesting separate question (link to James Swan's interesting discussion of the question).  Ultimately, we may simply conclude that Calvin passed over 2nd and 3rd John and Revelation temporarily in order to provide Old Testament commentaries, and that his death at 55 prevented him from writing commentaries on the remainder (see the quotation from Beza in T. H. L. Parker's Calvin's New Testament Commentaries).

Finally, while we do not have a canon list directly from John Calvin himself, we have the canon list from the French Confession of Faith of 1559 (link), which includes Revelation but does not include Baruch or any of the Apocrypha highlighted by Calvin in response to Trent.  This work was based on notes from John Calvin (as discussed here)(though see this dissenting view)(and see the evolution of the Gallican Confession discussed here).

Ultimately, there ought not to be any serious doubt about Calvin's view of Baruch, considering that his commentary on Daniel ends at chapter 12 (link to volume) and considering that Calvin did not raise any known objection to the French Confession of Faith, which included Esther and Revelation, but omitted Baruch.  

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 (link to my analysis)
2. Vulgate (link to my analysis)
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.