Responsibility, the Etymological Fallacy, and Soteriology 101

One of the most under-informed tropes of the Soteriology 101 channel has been the line that "Responsible means 'able to respond'."  While it may be a handy mnemonic for an argument, it is quite definitely not the usual meaning of the word. 

Soteriology is not the first to make this error.  I came across an interesting thread at alt.usage.english from 17 years ago, which raises the issue in the context of having heard "new age" groups using this idea (link to thread).  In that thread, Dominic Bojarski provides a cogent and reasonably succinct answer:

The Latin word from which "responsible" comes from was borrowed into English at least three different times in the history of the language. Between each of the borrowings, the meaning of the Latin word evolved, so the meaning of the English words derived from it are not exactly the same.

The Latin word "spondeo" originally meant to make a public declaration of a religious nature, to pray in a formalized way in a public ceremony. It is from this use that the words "respond" and "response" come from. They were originally used in reference to antiphonal prayer. The chief priest said the first part of the formula, and the other priests or the public answered with the second part of the formula. The English word "answer" originally meant "to swear back", where "swear" meant something like "spondeo" in this sense. "Correspond" also comes from this meaning.

Later, "spondeo" came to mean to make a particular type of public religious statement, namely an oath or vow. It is from this sense that the words "responsible" and "sponsor" came from, meaning "able to swear that you give someone money to pay back a loan or support themselves if they cant do so themselves" or "able to swear that you will perform an act that someone else has promised to do if they are unable to do so". The English word "answerable" is the Anglo-Saxon equivalent.

The word "despondent" also comes from this meaning. "Despondeo" originally meant to swear that you will NOT do something, especially in the sense that you will deny yourself pleasures as part of a religious vow, for example, fasting or abstinence. "Despondent" therefore means "acting like someone who has denied himself pleasure."

Even later, "spondeo" became even more specific and came to mean "to public swear that you will marry someone". "Sponsus/sponsa" first meant "fiance/fiancee", and, later still, "husband/wife". This is where the English word "spouse" came from, and ultimately "espouse" as well.

Because "respond" and "responsible" came onto the English language at different stages in the evolution of the Latin word, it would be misleading to say that "responsible" means "able to respond".

The thread doesn't fully antedate Leighton, but it is older than his YouTube channel and was obviously not a response (pun noticed after) to him.

Let me offer a harsher criticism.  Leighton Flowers' misuse of English on this point is equivalent to suggesting that "accountable" means "able to account" and that therefore children reach the age of accountability when they are able to pass the CPA exam (or the equivalent accountancy test in other countries). In fact, "responsible" is synonymous (in the context of moral responsibility) with "accountable." 

Moreover, we can go further than Dominic went in terms of explaining the underlying problem with the catchy error.

The idea of being "responsible" can (in English) take on different senses.  For example, when someone says, "Bubonic Plague was responsible for the deaths of over twenty-five million Europeans" they don't mean, or imply (or connote), that the "Bubonic Plague" could - in any way - "respond" to the pleas of its victims.  Instead, what they mean is that the "Bubonic Plague" was the immediate cause of the deaths.

Thankfully, when we speak of moral responsibility, we mean something more than that.  But before we get to moral responsibility, consider the case of legal responsibility.

Exodus 21:28-29 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Notice that in this case, if a bull gores an adult to death, the bull is to be killed and not eaten.  However, if the bull was known to be aggressive, and the owner let him wander freely, then both the owner and the bull are to be executed.  

In this case, the bull is obviously the one responsible for the death of the adult, in the sense of being the immediate cause. We could debate the nature of a bovine will, but the issue for the bull is not whether it had moral agency or freedom of will, or whether it could have resisted the temptation of goring the passing adult, but whether it was the immediate cause of the person's death.  

Likewise, even if we could say that a passing adult was a tempting target for the aggressive bull, there is no similar temptation for the owner.  After all, this is not a trained attack bull being ordered to gore, it's simply an unruly beast.  Nevertheless, the owner is liable, either to the extent of not being able to use the bull for food (the main value of a dead bull) or even to the extent of being executed.

Legal liability to a criminal offense in the Mosaic law implies moral responsibility.  It cannot be doubted that capital punishment is one of the most significant forms of legal liability.  So, what is the theory of moral responsibility leading to legal liability? 

In this example, the theory of moral responsibility is that the owner had a duty that was triggered by ownership of a potentially lethal beast.  The duty is relatively small in the case of a bull that normally behaved well but suddenly acted out of character.  The duty grew in the case of a bull that was a particular threat to the community.  Failure of the moral duty and actual injury connected to that failure leads to liability.  

With no obvious "response" in this discussion, one might wonder how "responsibility" comes into play.

The answer is less obvious than one might think.  First, the idea of a "response" as a synonym to "answer" or "reply" dates from around 1300 (source).  Second, consider that to be brought before a judge is being called to give an answer.  We see an example of this in Acts 26:2:

Acts 26:2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:

Similarly:

Luke 12:11  And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:

The Greek word behind the English phrase is the word from which we get our word apologetics.  But the point here is the English usage of "giving an answer." A similar sense is given by "give an account" in the context of a trial.  

Thus, we have the phrases "accountable" and "answerable," which are less widely used today, as well as the more widely ujsed "responsible."  In each case, the implication (as it pertains to moral or legal responsibility) is passive, not active.  It is the ability to be required to give an answer, to given an account, or to give a response for what has occurred.  

The answer/account/response could be a full defense (it wasn't me), a justification (he attacked me first), or an excuse (the axe head slipped off the handle).  

Human beings can be called by God to give an answer for everything that they think (Genesis 6:5), say (Proverbs 10:19), or do (Romans 2:6).  That's the sense in which "responsible" is connected to "able to respond."  We are able to be called to give a response for our thoughts, words, and deeds.

(see this thread for further context)

God's Transliterated Name in the New Testament

Generally, in quotations from the Old Testament, the name of God, YHWH, is not translated or transliterated, but instead is substituted with the word "Lord" (κύριος). For example, in his dispute with Satan, Jesus said: "It is written again, 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.'" (Matthew 4:7) Jesus was paraphrasing Deuteronomy 6:16: "Ye shall not tempt the LORD (יְהוָה) your God (אֱלֹהֵיכֶם), as ye tempted him in Massah." 

The full tetragrammaton is never transliterated in the New Testament.  There are, however, four transliterated references to God's name in the New Testament in the word, "Alleluia."  

Strong's concordance explains: "ἀλληλουϊα allēlouïa, al-lay-loo'-ee-ah; of Hebrew origin (imperative of H1984 and H3050); praise ye Jah!, an adoring exclamation:—alleluiah."

All four transliterations in the New Testament are found in a single passage of Revelation.  

Revelation 19:1-6

And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Revelation 19:1-6 (TR)

καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἤκουσα φωνὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ μεγάλην ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λεγόντος, Ἁλληλουϊά· ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δύναμις Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν ὅτι ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι αἱ κρίσεις αὐτοῦ· ὅτι ἔκρινεν τὴν πόρνην τὴν μεγάλην ἥτις ἔφθειρεν τὴν γῆν ἐν τῇ πορνείᾳ αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξεδίκησεν τὸ αἷμα τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ δεύτερον εἴρηκαν Ἁλληλουϊά· καὶ ὁ καπνὸς αὐτῆς ἀναβαίνει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἔπεσαν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι οἱ εἴκοσι καὶ τέσσαρες καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, λέγοντες Ἀμήν Ἁλληλουϊά Καὶ φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου ἐξῆλθεν λέγουσα Αἰνεῖτε τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν πάντες οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ φοβούμενοι αὐτόν καὶ οἱ μικροὶ καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι καὶ ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ καὶ ὡς φωνὴν ὑδάτων πολλῶν καὶ ὡς φωνὴν βροντῶν ἰσχυρῶν λεγόντας, Ἁλληλουϊά ὅτι ἐβασίλευσεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ

Revelation 19:1-6 (NA28)

Μετὰ ταῦτα ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄχλου πολλοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λεγόντων· ἁλληλουϊά· ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ὅτι ἀληθιναὶ καὶ δίκαιαι αἱ κρίσεις αὐτοῦ· ὅτι ἔκρινεν τὴν πόρνην τὴν μεγάλην ἥτις ἔφθειρεν τὴν γῆν ἐν τῇ πορνείᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐξεδίκησεν τὸ αἷμα τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτῆς. Καὶ δεύτερον εἴρηκαν· ἁλληλουϊά· καὶ ὁ καπνὸς αὐτῆς ἀναβαίνει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. καὶ ἔπεσαν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ λέγοντες· ἀμὴν ἁλληλουϊά. Καὶ φωνὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου ἐξῆλθεν λέγουσα· αἰνεῖτε τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν πάντες οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ [καὶ] οἱ φοβούμενοι αὐτόν, οἱ μικροὶ καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι. Καὶ ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ καὶ ὡς φωνὴν ὑδάτων πολλῶν καὶ ὡς φωνὴν βροντῶν ἰσχυρῶν λεγόντων· ἁλληλουϊά, ὅτι ἐβασίλευσεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς [ἡμῶν] ὁ παντοκράτωρ.

(Brackets are indicated as such by the NA28)

The same Greek word is found in the Septuagint, specifically in Psalms 105-107, 111-114, 116-119, 135, 136, and 146-150 (Masoretic numbering, not Septuagint numbering).

The KJV transliterates this shortened name once in the Old Testament:

Psalm 68:4  Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.

Moreover, this short form of YHWH is used twice in Exodus (Exodus 15:2 and 17:16), dozens of times in the Psalms, once in Song of Solomon (where the KJV interestingly translates it differently), and thrice in Isaiah (Isaiah 26:4 and Isaiah 38:11 x2).  

John Bois' Notes on Revelation as it pertains to Revelation 16:5

Translating for King James: notes made by a translator of King James' Bible, translated and edited by Ward Allen, purports to be a transcription and light editing of the notes of John Bois.  As you may know, John Bois was charged with translating the Apocrypha (which were in Greek) and also served as a translator for part of the Old Testament (which was in Hebrew).  These notes, however, are from a further role he played as one of the editors of the KJV.

According to the title page of Allen's 1969, Vanderbilt University Press work, William Fulman made a hand copy of Bois' notes, which serve as the basis for Allen's work.

Below, I offer a few observations.  Those observations come with the caveat that I found at least one odd transcription error in Allen's work in transcribing the translators' notes in a Bishops' Bible (as mentioned here).  So, there is the possibility of error by Allen and/or (in this case) by Fulman.  Moreover, if I read Fulman's notes correctly, he himself was working from a copy made by an "unskillful hand."  In this case, however, Allen's work includes a facsimile of Fulman's notes, so the interested reader should be able to at least check that far without difficulty.

The notes themselves only include Romans to Revelation.  Moreover, there at least two sections relevant to Revelation: "Apocalypse of John" (beginning at p. 99) and "Added to Notes, Apocalypse" (beginning at p. 113).  Allen also created a "References Cited in John Bois's Notes," with the sub-section for Apocalypse found on p. 123.

In terms of the amount of notes, Bois' notes on Romans occupy 3 and 3/4 pages in Fulman's hand, whereas his notes on Revelation are about 2 and 1/2 pages.  

The only reference cited in Revelation (per Allen) is Arethas' commentary (as printed in 1532).  There is, however, frequent citation of the views of Andrew Downes (one of his fellow editors from the "Committee of Revisers"). Bois also mentions "Hutch," which apparently was a nickname of John Harmar, another of the Committee of Revisers. Harmar, or "Hutch," was on the "Second Oxford Company" assigned to translate the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation (link to source). 

Although the notes on Revelation address verses from nearly ever chapter, there are no notes on Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, or 16:5.  The only note on Revelation 11:17 relates to "and hast entered thy kingdom" (I've changed the spelling).  Thus, as it pertains to my main reason in consulting Bois' notes with respect to the reading at Revelation 16:5, it seems that the difference between Stephanus and Beza was not of any particular interest to the Committee of the Revisers (or at least to Bois).

Bois seems to have some interest in the manuscripts.  At Rev. 3:1 he comments that "Some codices do not have" the word for seven.   At Rev. 13:3 he comments that another manuscript has the word for "he will make war." Other than these two, though, I did not find any others in Revelation.  Neither of these textual observations are derivable from Beza's annotations.

Stephanus' 1550, however, has (at Revelation 3:1):

(source)

Whereas Beza's 1598 has: 

(source)

Similarly, at Revelation 13:5

(source)

Whereas Beza's 1598 has:

(source)

The observation provided by Stephanus does not exactly align with the notes provided by Allen/Fulman, but certainly the presence of a variant is asterisked by Stephanus.  It would be an interesting matter of further study to sort out whether Bois' notes (as per Furlman) have any actual manuscript support as they pertain to Revelation 13:5.

Unless we are to assume that Bois and his fellows independently noted these things, it seems reasonable to suppose that Bois and others did (at least occasionally) compare Beza and Stephanus and thus may have been aware of the difference between them at Revelation 16:5.

The most interesting note to me (on this read-through) was a note at Revelation 13:8, that both Downes and Harmar had the view that "from the foundation of the world" should modify "written" not "slain."  Obviously, on this point, Bois won out over the opinion of his fellow revisers.

Reception of Beza's Change to the Text of Revelation 16:5

Around 1611, the King James Version translators edited the Bishop's Bible at Revelation 16:5 to conform to Beza's reading.  This was a significant and intentional change on the part of the King James version translators, because the Bishop's Bible (1568) followed the original Greek: 

(Bishop's Bible, 1568)

Even the 1599 Geneva Bible (which was printed after Beza's emendation), continued to follow the original Greek and made no mention of the issue in the notes:

(Geneva Bible, 1599)

Likewise, Elias Hutter's 1599 Polyglot New Testament mostly did not follow Beza:

(Nuremberg Hutter Polyglot New Testament by Elias Hutter, 1599, p. 1037)

(Nuremberg Hutter Polyglot New Testament by Elias Hutter, 1599, p. 1036)

You may notice that there is some inconsistency amongst the various languages.  The French with "& qui seras" appears to adopt Beza's reading, whereas the Greek itself has "ἐρχόμενος" (which Erasmus hypothesized but Beza rejected).  

The Elzevier printers (a family descending from Lodewijk Elzevir) reverted to the Greek original (from Beza's reading) in the 1624 printing of the New Testament, but then returned to Beza's reading in 1633 (see comparison here), only to return to the Greek original in 1641, which was maintained in the Leers printings of 1654 and 1658.  

(source)

(source)

(source)

(1641, vol. 1 Gospels and Acts, "Ex Officinam Elseviriorum")(1641, vol. 2 Remainder)(1654, single volume "Ex Officinam Arnoldi Leers")(1658, single volume "Ex Officinam Leers").  I have not confirmed whether the text of the Amsterdam Elzevier editions (1656, 1662, 1670, 1678) also agrees.  

Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus, because it aimed to show the Greek underlying the King James Version, shows Beza's reading rather than the later reading of the Textus Receptus family of printed texts (the boundaries of this family are not well defined, but the term "textus receptus" was first used in the Elzevier 1633 edition in the form, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum").  The 1641, 1654, and 1658 printings mentioned above also maintained the textus receptus claim.

Walton's Polyglot (1657) likewise maintained the original Greek reading:

(source)

Bishop Fell (1675) maintained the original Greek after consulting the Coptic and Gothic versions maintained the original Greek:

(source)

John Mill (1707) continued the same reading (shown below), even after consulting the Ethiopic text.

Wettstein (1751-2 with additions by Semler, 1764, and further additions by Lotze, 1831) continued the same:

(source 1752 ed.)

We could go on, but the point is fairly straightforward.  New Testament textual scholars after Beza generally were not persuaded as to this change.  Thus, the only reason for the inclusion of this reading in today's "Textus Receptus" edition is because it happens to be the Greek text that corresponds to the 1611 King James Version, not because the Reformed churches "received" this text for a lengthy time.

That said, the Dutch 1637 did adopt the reading, as did numerous English editions following the KJV, and translations made from the KJV.  In some cases, such as the French by Jean-Frédéric Osterwald (1744) or the Spanish Valera 1602, I am not sure the basis for the adoption of the Beza/KJV reading.

How Dare I Appeal to the Majority of Greek Manuscripts!

In some places where the King James Version follows the wrong Greek text, it is fairly straightforward to demonstrate this from an appeal to the fact that the majority of texts disagree.  When this happens we tend to get the following kind of pushback:

Nick mistakenly assumes that "critical text guys" have such a strong partisanship with the main text reading of the NA28 (or other current critical text of the New Testament) that they will just defend its readings at all cost.  Maybe there are some folks like that, but that's more the mentality of many Textus Receptus advocates: they are examining the evidence to try to defend their initial views, as opposed to examining the evidence to try to form a conclusion from the evidence. 

I would like to believe that some folks hold to the Textus Receptus because they think that the manuscript evidence actually supports the Textus Receptus.  However, that's not the case with folks Drs. Peter van Kleek or Dr. Riddle who have abandoned the Reformation era Protestant understanding of textual criticism in favor of the Reformation era Roman Catholic understanding of textual criticism.  For them, the manuscript evidence may be interesting, but the manuscripts are not to be used to edit the text before us.

Sometimes the same error Nick is illustrating is done the other way: there is an assumption that due to partisanship for the NA28, "critical text guys" just want to attack the readings of the TR, even when such an attack is unwarranted.  From this point, the error seems even more unreasonable.  How does such a person think that the battleground texts are selected? The reason that "critical text guys" have a problem with specific TR readings is because they think that the original text is not what the TR has.

Nick's main argument is an appeal to consistency.  If we think the TR is wrong because of a majority text principle at Revelation 16:5 or Revelation 11:17 or anywhere else, then we must acknowledge on the same majority text principle that the NA28 is wrong at 1 Timothy 3:16.

The problem with Nick's argument is that it is an oversimplification of the process.

According to Bart Ehrman a low estimate for the total number of textual variants in the New Testament is around 200k.  D. A. Waite claims that there are 5,604 differences between the TR and the CT.  Thus, even if the KJV were always following the majority, that would mean the CT would be following the majority text at least 97% of the time.  

This then is an example of the saying, "the exception proves the rule."  In the 2% (or whatever the real number) of cases where TR does not follow the majority of manuscripts, there must be some good reason for doing so. I don't mean just that there must be some good reason, and maybe some day we will find the reason.  I mean instead that the editors of the text have to justify their decision. 

So does Beza.  We don't have to accept Beza's departure from the majority because he's Beza or because he was followed by the KJV translators.    

Thus, we are right to challenge Beza's adoption of a minority reading at Revelation 11:17.  What's the good reason to follow the minority of manuscripts, particularly when the minority reading is later than the majority reading?  The short answer is that there isn't a good reason to do so, which is why we don't follow Beza on this point, even though the KJV translators did.

As for 1 Timothy 3:16, if someone is going to follow the main text reading of the NA28, they should have a good reason for doing so, not simply because the NA28 editors have said so.  This isn't the post to debate that particular point, but simply to acknowledge that the scales do need to be even.  We shouldn't automatically accept the NA28 readings because they are NA28, just as the TR folks shouldn't automatically accept the TR readings because they are TR.

By default, the reading found in the majority of Greek manuscripts is right.  That method works (at least) 97% of the time or so, and is especially the cases when the contrary Greek manuscripts are alone in their reading against all the other Greek manuscripts.  As the size of the minority grows, the need for justification of the reading grows.  As the age of the minority grows (i.e. becomes older), the need for justification of the reading grows.  These are not rigid rules like "the oldest manuscript is always right" or "the reading with the most manuscripts is always right," and I understand how that can make some people feel uncomfortable.  Nevertheless, that is why we do (as our spiritual forefathers have done since at least the 2nd century) collation.

Translator's Notes - A Cautionary Tale

Thanks very much to Timothy Berg for his article, "A Newly Digitized Bible Reveals the Origins of the King James Version" (and thanks also to Nick Sayers for his video related thereto).  Most of all thanks to the Bodleian Library and UPenn who have digitized and made freely available to the public, a rare example of notes from the King James Version translators.  These notes are handwritten in a printed Bishop's Bible.

I was simultaneously pleased and annoyed by the announcement.  After all, I had managed to acquire the study by Ward S. Allen and Edward C. Jacobs, "The Coming of the King James Gospels" (1995), which was based the notes from this document.  Until this digitization, Allen's book was the most practical way to have access to the notes.  I was pleased because Allen's book contains few facsimile renderings of the text.  The majority of Allen's book is as shown below (this is not the section where I noticed the error):

The annoyance was not at the seeming waste of money for something now freely available (after all, Allen and Jacobs go beyond a mere transcription, and offer comments and analysis of the notes).  Instead my annoyance is that in the first place I looked (related to a project I have been working on for some months), Allen and Jacobs' notes show a change that is not there.

I have no explanation for Allen and Jacob's error.  At first I hoped that this was a second copy of the translators' notes, for indeed the shelf mark was different.  A further investigation, however, revealed that the shelf mark has been updated, but the document is the same.

I cannot understand why A&J would deliberately mislead the reader.  My guess is that they took handwritten notes of the differences between the KJV and the Bishop's Bible, and somehow conflated their own notes of the differences with the document itself, in at least the one place I checked.

Moreover, it seems that their error misled at least one researcher between 1995 and now (not counting myself).  God willing, more on the actual point in question in some future post.

A&J's book was subtitled: "A Collation of the Transaltors' Work-in-Progress."  Let this serve as a warning regarding getting information via collation, rather than first hand.

How are Faith and Works Related? - a Constructive Debate Speech

The KJV uses the words Faith and Works together in the same verse 15 times.  I’ve drafted my discussion around those verses.

First, definitions.  

Faith:

Hebrews 11:1-3 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Works 

What we do, whether good or bad, as it relates to God’s law:

Romans 2:1-16 - Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Justification is by faith, not by works

Galatians 2:16 - Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Seeking Justification by Works is the wrong way and doomed to failure

Romans 9:31-32 - But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Salvation is entirely by grace through faith, not just initial justification

Galatians 3:2 - This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:5 - He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Ephesians 2:8-10 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The law of faith excludes boasting in a way that the law of works would not because it is by grace through faith, not by works

Romans 3:27 - Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Romans 4:5 - But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:16 - Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 11:6 - And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Faith and Works go together

2 Thessalonians 2:13 - But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Hebrews 6:1 - Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Hebrews 9:14 - How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Revelation 2:13 - I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Revelation 2:19 - I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

Galatians 5:22-24 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

True Saving Faith is evidenced by works

Seven of the verses are in James 2 (14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26)

James 2:1-26

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

We ought to work because of the faith authored in us by Christ

Hebrews 12:1-2 - Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Manuscript evidence of Revelation 16:5

The current ECM website data for Revelation 16:5 provides transcription data for around 100 witnesses to Revelation 16:5.  Some of those are witnesses are "corrector" witnesses.  

A comparison of the transcription reveals both a general harmony with the ECM/NA28 as well as numerous departures from the ECM/NA28.  Most of the departures seem to be minor.  

Example 1: Phrase Insertion

About 10% of the witnesses insert "του επι" to the first phrase of the verse, "και ηκουσα του αγγελου του επι των υδατων λεγοντος" and a big percentage note a punctuation mark: "λεγοντος·".  The punctuation mark in this example is an ἄνω τελεία (ano teleia) also known as άνω στιγμή (ano stigmi) or simply "Greek semicolon."  This punctuation mark has no viability because such marks were a later development used for aiding reading, as evidenced by their absence in the oldest manuscripts. 

The addition of the "του επι" would change the phrase from "and I heard the angel of the waters saying" to "and I heard the angel upon the waters saying".  I am not familiar with anyone who argues that this is the original text.  The majority and earliest manuscripts don't have this reading. The Vulgate does not have this reading.  I have not checked patristic witnesses about this myself.  

Hoskier (link) identifies seven manuscripts for this variant as well as Arethas for a similar variant:

The TR, like the NA28, follows the shorter text.  

Example 2: Verb Change

A single manuscript (2048) apparently has ηκουσε instead of ηκουσα to form the phrase "και ηκουσε του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος."  The difference in meaning "he heard" instead of "I heard."  2048 is an 11th century manuscript of Revelation.  Hoskier identifies the variant as corresponding to a single manuscript:

The Vulgate does not have this reading.  I have not checked patristic witnesses about this myself.  It might be very hard to distinguish between uses of "he heard" as the commentator's own introduction (i.e. to refer to John rather than the commentator), although in theory there could be commentary that would make the issue clear.

The TR, like the NA28, follows the overwhelming majority of texts.

Example 3: Article Change

It seems there was an error in the copying of 2286, as a result the firsthand text seems to have written and then erased "τω" rather than "του" before αγγελου.  Similarly, the firsthand text of 01 seems to be "των" but was corrected to "του" .  

Hoskier notes the error and correction of 01 thus:

The article "των" with "αγγελου" would be irregular.  Although it is found in one of the earliest manuscripts, considering that it is corrected there and considering that the text of 2286 may simply witness a similar clerical slip, this variant does not seem to be viable.  It's not directly translatable in English or Latin.  

Once again, the TR, like the NA28, follows the overwhelming majority of texts.

Example 4: Phrase Omission and Participle Change

At least three manuscripts (2026, 2057, 2495) completely omit the phrase, "και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων". Two of those replace "λεγοντος" (a genitive participle) with "λεγων" (a nominative participle).  As to the former issue, Hoskier notes:

As to the latter issue, Hoskier notes:

These third and fourth variants of  "λεγωντος" or "λεγοντως" for "λεγοντος" did not show up in the transcription list I have.  Nevertheless, in my list, manuscript 2845 has "λεγοντα" for "λεγοντος", which Hoskier does not seem to note.  Ultimately, each of the manuscripts that depart from the overwhelming majority seems to be a 15th century manuscript.  The Vulgate uses the accusative for "saying" (which I think should serve the same purpose as the Greek genitive here) and English while it doesn't distinguish participles in the same way, seems functionally the same.  I didn't check the patristic witnesses myself, although it can be seen that the Armenian seemingly has a different take.

Yet again, the TR, like the NA28, follows the overwhelming majority of texts.

Example 5: Word Order

Several manuscripts change the order of the words of this first phrase.  For example, 2329 and 2886 place "λεγοντος" before "των υδατων", while 2847 places "των υδατων" before "του αγγελου."  Manuscript 2847 also replaces "ηκουσα" with "οικουσα".  2847 is a 16th century manuscript and 2886 is a 15th century manuscript, while 2329 is a 10th century manuscript.  

Hoskier does not seem to note the latter issue, but regarding the former issue observes:

Once again, the earliest and vast majority agree, and the TR and NA28 follow the earliest and vast majority of texts.  I don't think the word order issue would result in a translation difference, and it would seem unlikely to be clearly identifiable in the patristic evidence, which I haven't checked.

Summary (so far)

As you have hopefully seen so far, even in just this first phrase of the verse (i.e. Rev. 16:5a), there are only seven Greek words, but there are more than seven variant readings in the five examples I've provided above.  Moreover, Hoskier identifies additional variants such as the omission of the initial "and" (in the Sahiddic and some of the Boharic) and the addition of "holy" (ἁγίου) before angel, as well as the omission of "the angel."   Nevertheless, in each case the vast majority of the Greek copies agree with one another, and in each case the TR and the NA28 agree.  In fact, essentially  

Rev 16:5 (STEP bible)(NA28)

(NA28) Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(Nestle) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(Ant) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(Byz) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(Elz) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(SBLG) καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(SRGNT) Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(THGNT) καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(Tisch) καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(TNT) καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος ...

(TR) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

(WHNU) και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος ...

Even the Complutensian Polyglot agrees:

In short, despite the presence of lots of variants, the first half of the verse is relatively uncontroversial.

Interesting Variants in the Second Half

In order to reduce the amount of space, let me summarize the variants in the second half (i.e. "... Δίκαιος εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας"), limiting myself to the variants with Greek text support in the 100 witnesses for which I have transcripts.  Before I do that, I think it worth noting that literally all 100 witnesses have no variation regarding the word "δικαιος" (righteous).  

1. Manuscript 61 had ο and then δι before δικαιος but ultimately was corrected to avoid such insertions.
2. Manuscript 2344 adds Lord in nomina sacra form ("κ̅ε̅·") after righteous (Manuscripts 2049 and 296, which are from the 16th century and copied from a printed text likewise have the inserted word).
3. Manuscripts 104, 141, 2042, 2495, 2847, and 2919 omit εἶ.
4. Manuscripts 131 and 2042 add "ην" before "ὁ ὢν"
5. Manuscript 2495 adds "ων" before "ὁ ὢν"
6. Manuscript 2847 omits the "ὁ" before "ὢν" 
7. Manuscript 2847 omits the "καὶ " after "ὁ ὢν"
8. About 27 witnesses (including the earliest witness) use the word "ὃς" rather than "ὁ" before "ἦν"
9. About 23 witnesses (including the earliest witness) include the καὶ before ὅσιος .
10. About 49 witnesses (about half and including the earliest manuscript) omit the ὁ before ὅσιος
11. Manuscript 2432 has a reading of ωσιος rather than ὅσιος although it is corrected.
12. Manuscript 2847 has "και ω ων ωσιος" instead of "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"
13. Manuscript 2919 has "ο ο αμγοσιος" instead of "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"
14. Manuscript 2495 omits "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"
15. Manuscript 2026 inserts "εν τοις εργοις σου" (in your works) after "καὶ ὅσιος"
16. Manuscript 469 inserts "και ο αγιος" after "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"
17. Manuscript 2196 omits "ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας" 
18. Manuscript 2845 has "παντα" for "ταῦτα"
19. Manuscript 792 has "δικαια" for "ταῦτα"

As you can see, all but three of these variants are cases where there is an overwhelming majority reading.  Moreover, as you can see, even with just these copies, there are 13 words and 19 variants.

Looking at the NA28 (which agrees with the Complutensian here), the Stephanus 1550 TR, and Beza's TR, we see the following differences:

• NA28/Complutensian ... δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας,
• TR1550  ... Δίκαιος Κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὅσιος ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας
• Beza 1582/98: ...  Δίκαιος, Κύριε, εἶ Ὁ ὢν, καὶ Ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας.

In short, all three correspond to the overwhelming majority of manuscripts for variants 1, 3-7 and 15-19, i.e. the minority position is rejected in all those cases.  Similarly, none of the three follow the minority variants 11-14.  That leaves us to consider variants 2 and 8-10.

The insertion of "Lord" (variant 2)

This insertion has weak evidence in the manuscripts and versions.  Specifically, Hoskier notes:

In other words, Hoskier identifies the word as being present in two Greek manuscripts, the Aethiopic, and part of the Boharic.  

The oldest and the vast majority of manuscripts support the non-inclusion of the word.  The reason for the presence of the word in the TR editions (both Stephanus and Beza) is the inclusion without comment by Erasmus from his very first edition.

The presence of the extraneous "Lord" in a small number of manuscripts is most easily explained by parallel corruption from verse 7, which has the word, or from an insertion intended to clarify that the angel was talking to the Lord, not to John.  The alternative explanation that scribes tended to insert the word "Lord" into the text, while correctly premised, does not seem to be the best explanation here, as the usual trigger for such an insertion would be the presence of the name, Jesus, or the title, Christ.  The insertion does not alter the meaning of the text, because the angel is speaking to the Lord.

The word "ὃς" rather than "ὁ" before "ἦν" (variant 8)

None of the three editions we are looking at follow this well attested but minority reading.  The probable reason for rejecting this reading is that although it makes the Greek smoother, it does so at the expense of an intentionally irregular use of Greek here, to signal that the Greek participle is being used as a name/title of God.  The reading here is so similar to the readings found at 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17 that it is hard to imagine that a different wording was intentionally used by John here.   

The omission of "καὶ" after "ἦν" (variant 9)

The NA28 and the Complutensian Polyglot, following the majority of witnesses against the minority and the earliest witness, omit the "καὶ" here.  It's a difficult variant to consider in isolation.  Possibly the Complutensian editors just followed the manuscripts they had.  For the NA28 editors, the choice had to be informed by the related variant of  ὁ before ὅσιος, which we will consider next.  In short, "καὶ" makes sense if the word "holy" is supposed to be coordinate with "righteous" (Δίκαιος).  Thus, the insertion of this word can be used as an attempt to correct a perceived omission. 

The omission of the "ὁ" before "ὅσιος" (variant 10)

If the word "holy" were coordinate with "righteous," one would not normally expect the article ὁ to be present, because it would not be needed.  Correspondingly, the article is omitted in quite a lot of the exemplars, seemingly as a false correction to the text.  Interestingly, though, I cannot tell at a glance whether the ὁ is more often omitted when the καὶ is present or absent.

While we may be inclined to agree with Beza that the combination of "καὶ ὁ" that he found in the Stephanus TR is problematic, the better solution is to understand that the "καὶ" was erroneously added.  With that understanding, the point of the "ὁ" is to serve a similar purpose as it did with the previous names, "ὁ ὢν" and "ὁ ἦν," namely to signal that the word "holy" is being used in the Vocative as a name/title of God.

The substitution of "καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος" for "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος"

The reader will notice that this variant does not have a number.  That's because this variant does not correspond to any of the texts in the list I have.  It likewise does not correspond to any text found by Hoskier.  Some people claim that Beza had a manuscript with such a reading.  If so, it would be a singular reading.

If such a manuscript existed, it seems likely that it was similarly an attempt to deal with the difficult construction "καὶ ὁ ὅσιος" found in the exemplar.  The scribe presumably saw that "ὁ ὅσιος" was irregular and thought that the "καὶ" would be more naturally followed by a third tense participle of the verb "to be" (εἰμί), namely the future middle participle, nominative masculine singular (ἐσόμενος).  

There is no versional evidence that directly supports this substitution, and the patristic evidence brought forward to substantiate this substitution is shaky at best (see the analysis here).

Conclusion

For Revelation 16:5, despite the numerous variants witnessed by the manuscripts, it turns out that there are very few variants that require us to do more than realize that they represent a tiny minority.  While variants 8-10 (from the above list) are interesting and require some thought, they are resolvable.

Versional Evidence at Revelation 16:5

Sahidic (source)

Boharic (source)

Syriac (source)

ܘܫܡܥܬ ܠܡܠܐܟܐ ܕܡܝܐ ܕܐܡܪ ܙܕܝܩ ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܘܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܘܚܤܝܐ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܕܢܬ ܀ ("Peshitta")

(Eth) And I heard the angel of the waters saying, Righteous art Thou, who art, And who wast, and just; Because thou hast judged these.

(Murd) And I heard the angel of the waters say: Righteous art thou, who art and who wast, and art holy; because thou hast done this judgment.

Georgian 1879 (source)

რომელი  ამბობდა: მართალ ხარ, უფალო, რომელი ეგე ხარ, და რომელი იყავ, და რომელი ხარ წმიდა, ... 

Armenian (1895)

Critical Armenian text in English (source): 

Pecularities of Codex 3 (source)

Variations from the normal text of alpha of the manuscripts mu, kappa, and lambda (source)

Variants of Codex 6 with Codex 1 (source)

Appendices:

Appendix I: Additional Coptic

Rev 16:5 (source)

(CopSahidicMSS) ⲁⲓⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲡⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲕ ⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ

(CopSahHorner) ⲁⲓⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲡⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲕⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ

(CopSahidica) ⲁⲓⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲡⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲕ ⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲡⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ

Appendix II: Additional Georgian

(source) 

5და გავიგონე, წყლების ანგელოზი რომ ამბობდა: „მართალი ხარ შენ, რომელიც ხარ და იყავი, წმიდაო, რომ ასე განსაჯე. 
(source)

 5და გავიგონე, წყლების ანგელოზი რომ ამბობდა: „მართალი ხარ შენ, რომელიც ხარ და იყავი, წმიდაო, რომ ასე განსაჯე.

(source)

5გავიგონე, წყლების ანგელოზი რომ ამბობდა: „მართალი ხარ შენ, რომელიც ხარ და იყავი, წმიდაო, რადგანაც ასე განიკითხე.

Lorenzo Valla

Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) was a genius.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes him as "one of the most important humanists of his time."  He is noted as being the one who demonstrated that Pseudo-Dionysius was not the companion of Paul (see this lecture or this article; N.B. I do not endorse the lecturer's views on the relationship of Christianity and the New Testament) and that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery (as mentioned here; see this acknowledgment by the Vatican). He also provided a critique of Aristotelean logic. 

One of Valla's contributions was not well-appreciated during his lifetime, but proved to be immensely important.  He compared the Vulgate Latin text of his day with the Greek New Testament.  A manuscript edition of this work was found and published by Desiderius Erasmus.

Lorenzo Valla was the first significant biblical scholar of the Renaissance. He set himself the task of comparing the Vulgate to the Greek text of the New Testament during his amazingly fruitful period, 1435–48, at the south Italian court of King Alfonso the Magnanimous. He seems to have completed a first draft by 1443 and continued to work on this version up to 1453, five years after coming to Rome from Naples. He called this first recension Collatio Novi Testamenti and dedicated it to Pope Nicholas V.[FN35] From 1453 to his death in 1457 Valla revised this first version, leaving at his death a clearly more sophisticated, though shorter, text that carried the title In Latinam Novi Testamenti Interpretationem Annotationes in the 1505 editio princeps put through the press by its discoverer, Erasmus of Rotterdam. [FN36] The Annotationes, which were the only recension available in print until 1970, have in common only about 60% of the lemmata found in the Collatio,[FN37] and even in the case of these common lemmata the Annotationes offer a considerable revision of the Collatio. Valla’s work enjoyed a minimal circulation[FN38] until Erasmus discovered a copy of the Annotationes in the abbey of Parc outside of Leuven in the summer of 1504. From that point on, it has been the object of divergent interpretations and serves almost as a Rorschach test of one’s attitude towards Valla. Erasmus drew inspiration from it and spent much of his preface defending the notion that a grammaticus (ostensibly Valla, but as the future would reveal, really Erasmus himself) could legitimately treat sacrae litterae.[FN39] Erasmus's scriptural method would go far beyond Vallas's narrow grammatical approach, and he would at times express annoyance at Valla's tendency to quibble over minutiae.[FN40]

[FN35] For the history of the text see Alessandro Perosa’s preface to his edition of Valla’s Collatio Novi Testamenti (Florence, 1970). 

[FN36] The single extant manuscript of the second recension has a different title: Correctio. Novi Testamenti; see the description of MS 4031-4033 of the Bibliothèque Royale Albert I, Brussels, in J. Van den Gheyn et al., Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique (Brussels, 1901-48) p. 91, no. 211. For a compendium of the Annotationes prepared by an unknown fifteenth-century scholar, see Riccardo Fubini, "Una scolastica testimoniaza manoscritta delle 'Annotationes in Novum Testamentum,'" in his L’Umanesimo italiano, pp. 169-83.

[FN37] See Perosa in Valla, Collatio, p. XXVII.

[FN38] In addition to the codex unicus of the Annotationes, only two manuscripts of the Collatio survive; see Perosa in Valla, Collatio, pp. IX-XVII.

[FN39] Ep. 182, Allen 1, pp. 406-12.

[FN40] See Jerry H. Bentley, "Biblical Philolohy and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Scholars of the Gospels," The Sixteenth Century Journal 8 (1977), 8-28, at pp. 14 and 22. See also Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto, 1986), p. 88: "In many cases Valla's findings formed no more than a point of departure for Erasmus ... It must also be acknowledged that the sum total of Valla's notes is small by comparison with Erasmus' detailed commentary."

(Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus 2008, pp. 21-22)

Interestingly, the work referenced in FN35 above omits the Apocalypse as well as Philemon.  Bentley explains that Valla's work circulated as a first draft and then a subsequent second draft, the latter of which Erasmus ultimately printed (source). 

What are Valla's comments in Revelation? 

(In Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem ... adnotationes By Laurentius Valla · 1505)(Laurentii Vallensis viri tam gr[a]ec[a]e q[am] latin[a]e linguae peritissimi in Latinam Noui testamenti interpretationem ex collatione Gr[a]ecorum exemplarium Adnotationes apprime vtiles By Laurentius Valla · 1505)

At Revelation 1:

Transcription: 

Gratia vobis ab eo qui est & qui erat & qui venturus est, et a septem spiritibus qui in conspectu throni eius sunt. Nescio an aliquid mysterii sit in hoc quod graece dicitur, ab iis qui est, & ab iis qui erat & ab iis qui venturus est sive ut ad verbum transferam ab ens, & ab iis quis erat, & ab iis qui venturus: quanquam graece propter articulos concinnius dicitur, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. An voluit Ioannes in deo significare immutabilem proprietatem quod non facit cum nominat septem spiritus: ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων. Illud autem quod qui venturus est transfertur: praesentis est potius participium quam futuri. Sed cur interpres non transtulit nunc nomen graecum throni per sedis ut caeteris in locis facit? 

Translation:

Grace to you from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne. I do not know whether there is any mystery in this that is said in Greek, from those who are, and from those who were and from those who are to come or as to translate word for word from being, and from those who were, and from those who are to come; although in Greek it is more aptly said due to the articles, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Did John want to signify in God an immutable property, which he does not do when he names the seven spirits: ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων? However, that which is translated as 'who is to come' is rather a present participle than a future one. But why did the translator not translate now the Greek name of the throne through 'seat' as he does in other places?

At Revelation 4:

Transcription:

Dicentia sanctus sanctus sanctus. Quid causae est cur cum graeci codices omnes havent novies sanctus: latini habeant omnino ter & mysterium illud ter trium qui est numerus ordinum angelorum perdant? Et propter voluntatem tuam erant & creati sunt: graece non legitur erant sed sunt: εἰσἰ, de deo enim dicitur quod erat, non de rebus creatis.

Translation:

Saying holy, holy, holy. What is the reason why, when all the Greek manuscripts have 'holy' nine times, the Latin ones have it altogether three times and lose that mystery of three times three, which is the number of orders of angels? And for your will they were and were created: in Greek, it is not read as 'were' but as 'are': εἰσἰ, for it is said of God that He was, not of created things.

While the focus is on the same verse, it is not on this particular issue.

At Revelation 11:

Transcription:

Gratias agimus tibi domine deus omnipotens qui es & qui eras & qui accepisti virtutem. Graece est, Qui es, qui eras, & qui venturus es: quia recepisti virtutem καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι εἴληφας.

Translation:

We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who are and who were and who have taken power. In Greek, it is, 'Who are, who were, and who are to come: because you have taken power' (καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι εἴληφας).

Notice that focus is on Revelation 11:17.

At Revelation 16:

Transcription:

Iustus es domine qui es & qui eras Sanctus: quia haec iudicasti. graece est: ut superius admonui: erat non eras: quasi dicatur tu domine, is qui est & qui erat qui sanctus, neque enim graece sanctus refertur ad erat ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος.

Translation:

You are just, O Lord, who are and who were, Holy: because you have judged these things. In Greek, it is, as I have warned above: 'was' not 'were'; as if it is said, 'you, Lord, he who is and who was, the holy one,' for in Greek 'holy' is not referred to 'was' (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος).

Notice that the focus is on Revelation 16:5.

Similar comments can be found in the other editions of Valla's comments.

From his Annotations (In novum testamentum annotationes By Laurentius Valla, Lorenzo Valla · 1526)

At Revelation 1 (pp. 338-9)

Transcription:

Gratia vobis ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui venturus est, et [a?] septem spiritibus qui in conspectu throni eius sunt) Nescio an aliquid mysterii sit in hoc quod graece dicitur, ab iis qui est, & ab iis qui erat, & ab iis qui venturus est: sive ut ad verbum transferam, ab ens, & ab iis quis est, & ab iis qui erat, & ab iis qui venturus: quanquam graece propter articulos concinnius dicitur, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. An voluit Ioannes in deo significare immutabilem proprietatem? quod non facit cum nominat septem spiritus, ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων. Illud autem quod, qui venturus est, transfertur, praesentis est potius participium quam futuri. Sed cur interpres non transtulit nunc nomen graecum throni per sedis, ut caeteris in locis facit? 

At Revelation 4 (p. 341)

Transcription:

Dicentia, sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.) Quid causae est cur cum graeci codices omnes havent novies sanctus, latini habeant omnino ter, & mysterium illud ter trium, qui est numerus ordinum angelorum, perdant? Et propter voluntatem tuam erant & creati sunt) graece non legitur erant, sed sunt, εἰσἰ, de deo enim dicitur, quod erat, non de rebus creatis.

At Revelation 11 (p. 343)

Transcription:

Gratias agimus tibi domine deus omnipotens, qui es, & qui eras, & qui accepisti virtutem) graece est: Qui es, qui eras, & qui venturus es, quia recepisti virtutem, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὅτι εἴληφας.

At Revelation 16 (p. 345)

Transcription:

Iustus es domine qui es, & qui eras Sanctus, quia haec iudicasti) graece est, ut superius admonui, erat non eras, quasi dicatur: tu domine, is qui est, & qui erat, qui Sanctus: neq; enim graece Sanctus refertur ad erat, ὁ ὢν, καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ἅγιος.

(see also the republication of Valla in the 1540 "Opera Omnia" or this backup link of Erasmus' original 1505 publication. Laurentii Vallensis viri tam gr[a]ec[a]e q[am] latin[a]e linguae peritissimi in Latinam Noui testamenti interpretationem ex collatione Gr[a]ecorum exemplarium Adnotationes apprime vtiles By Laurentius Valla · 1505).

Bentley notes that Erasmsus considered himself a follower of Valla and Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (1455-1536).  D'Étaples provided commentaries on the Gospels, Paul's epistles, and the Catholic epistles.

The French Bible associated with Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples has limited notes at Revelation 16:5

Ultimately, therefore, when we look at the most likely source for Erasmus on this point, we see Valla.