Response to Will Kinney on Revelation 16:5

Will Kinney has an article on Revelation 16:5 (link to article).

I thought it might be worthwhile to review the arguments and evidence provided by Will Kinney in his article hosted by Nick Sayers:

Article: Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be" by Will Kinney

Revelation 16:5 "Thou art righteous, O LORD, which art, and wast, AND SHALT BE, because thou hast judged thus."

The Book of Revelation has more textual variants than any other New Testament book. The reading found in the King James Bible in Revelation 16:5 represents one of the hundreds of such textual variants. It is admittedly a minority reading, but it should be noted that for every One minority reading found in the KJB, there are at least 20 such minority readings found in the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV. These modern versions often do not even agree with each other. One will follow a particular minority reading while the other will disagree and follow another.

1) The issue is the removal of "O Holy One" and the replacement of it with "and shalt be" that was introduced by Theodore Beza in 1582.

2) Revelation is one of the longer books of the New Testament.  So, it would not be surprising if it had the most textual variants.  That said, the total number of textual variants apparently hasn't been counted.  It would be surprising if Revelation had more textual variants than Matthew, given that there are many more copies of Matthew than of Revelation.  It's hard to guess what Will means instead.  Perhaps he means that people raise more issues with respect to the King James Version's text of Revelation than with other books.  This may be the case because it is probably the least well done of the New Testament books in the King James Version.

3) Calling this substitution a "minority" reading is generous. It looks more like a conjectural emendation by Beza. There are no pre-17th century Greek manuscripts that make the substitution of Beza made.  There are no versions that make the substitution Beza made.  As far as we can tell, Beza came up with this himself some time between 1565 and 1582.  

4) Will's reference to a supposed ratio of minority readings in the KJV to the "modern versions" appears to be similarly a made-up statistic.  In a previous post, I went through a more extensive list of the variants in the Greek manuscripts at Revelation 16:5, addressing more than two dozen of them (link to post)(see also this post).  In most cases, both the Nestle-Aland/UBS (NU) text and the KJV-based text of Scrivener (TR) followed the majority of Greek manuscripts.  However, in the two places where the NU and TR disagree, (the insertion of "Lord" and the substitution that this article focuses on) the TR is not following the majority reading.

5) Even if we were to assume Will's data to be correct, what should we do with it? Let's assume that, on average, the NU text is much more likely to follow a minority reading than the TR.  If following the majority is a good thing, then that means that the NU has a lot more explaining to do than the TR.  However, it does not excuse the TR in this instance, just because in other instances a minority reading is followed by the NU.

6) In those cases where the NU fails to follow the majority, it better have a good explanation for failing to do so.  If it does not, let's improve the NU.  Will, however, is not similarly open to improving the TR by conforming it to the majority.

7) Modern version disagreement is an interesting phenomenon, to be sure.  It is particularly interesting to note the places where the modern versions disagree with the NU and favor the TR.  That said, that's not the case here.  Even if it were the case, that might simply tell us that the variant was harder to determine to be original.

Will continues:

For example, in Revelation 15:3 the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Spanish Reina Valera say: "just and true are thy ways, thou King OF SAINTS." (hagiwn)

The NASB follows other texts and says: "King OF THE NATIONS" (ethnwn), while the NIV follows different ones still and says: "King OF THE AGES" (aiwniwn).

The Greek manuscripts that are transcribed over at INTF (link) show that the majority of Greek manuscripts have "ages" at Revelation 15:3 but a minority have "nations."  The minority include some of the oldest copies.  None of the transcribed copies have "saints," and Hoskier (link) does not seem to have found any copies with "saints." Instead, "saints" seems to be an erroneous back-translation by Erasmus from a Latin copy with "saeculorum" abbreviated as "sclrum," which Erasmus took to be "sctrum" for "sanctorum."  Accordingly, Erasmus erroneous placed the word "ἁγίων" in the text, where it remained despite Henri Stephanus' apparatus noting the issue in the 1550 edition:

(source)

The NT conjectures page offers this interesting account:

Finally, we come to a very bizarre case. Those who had won the victory over the beast and its image and the number of its name are standing near the sea of glass, holding the harps that God had given them (3), and they sing the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb: “Great and wonderful are your deeds. Just and true are your ways, o King of the nations.” The last word, ἐθνῶν, printed by Nestle-Aland, 25th and 26th edd., as well as by the GNT, is controversial, and the variant αἰῶνος has strong manuscript support (Papyrus 47, late 3rd c., Sinaiticus, 4th c. and other witnesses). Ἐθνῶν is suspicious because it could mean “of the Gentiles”, and this is how Luther originally translated it; later he changed his mind and accepted (ἁγίων, “of the Saints”) from Erasmus, but this is also wrong. Erasmus had retranslated this part of the Apocalypse from the Latin Vulgate, because he had no Greek manuscript for it. In the Codex he was using, he found the compendium sclrum (for saeculorum) which he misread as the compendium for sctrum (= sanctorum), so he boldly translated ἁγίων, which survived as part of the ‘textus receptus’ until the truth became clear in the early 19th century. Meanwhile, αἰῶνος had been accepted as the true reading by Grotius, Mills and others long ago. It is confirmed by 1 Tim. 1:17. The correct form could easily be corrupted into ἐθνῶν, because αι sounded like ε, and the ὠμέγα could be taken as a θῆτα. This example is sufficient, all by itself, to show how unreliable our editions of the Greek New Testament are. The NJB translate “King of nations”, without any comment.

I should note, however, that we should be cautious about this claim that Erasmus had no Greek manuscript.  It's possibly that Erasmus corrected the text despite having an accurate Greek manuscript.  

Nevertheless, the roughly 80 (nations) / 20 (ages) variant distribution in the manuscripts, together with the fact that the minority reading seems to be older, is why the "modern" versions disagree between "nations" and "ages" as well as why "saints" (another one of the KJV's conjectural readings) is clearly wrong.

Will continued: 

Another instance of fickle changes and disagreements among the modern versions is found in Revelation 13:10. There we read: "...HE THAT KILLETH with the sword MUST (dei) be killed with the sword..." "He that killeth with the sword MUST" is in the active voice; he is doing the killing. And there is the additional word "must" which in Greek is a three letter word DEI. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus, Sinaiticus and manuscript C. It also used to read this way in the previous Westcott-Hort and the Nestle Greek texts. I have a copy of the Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition, 1934 and it clearly reads the active voice and has the additional word "dei". "he that killeth must..." (apoktenei dei)

"HE THAT KILLETH with the sword MUST..." (active voice, and includes the word "must") is the reading of Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, the Spanish Reina Valera and Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta.

However, later on, the Nestle Greek text was once again changed and they decided to follow the reading of ONE manuscript, that is, Alexandrinus. This single manuscript changes the reading from "he that killeth" (apoktenei) to "he that is to be killed" (apoktantheenai) and it also removes the Greek word "must" - DEI. Now, the NIV, ESV and Holman versions have adopted this new reading based on ONE manuscript, and they now read: "IF ANYONE IS TO BE KILLED with the sword, with the sword he will be killed." Notice that the RSV and NRSV both followed the King James reading, but now the new ESV (a revision of the old RSV, NRSV) has now "scientifically" decided to go along with the NIV and follow a different text, and the 1995 NASB doesn't even follow the newest UBS 4th edition text, so it must be "out of date". This is how the "scholars' game" is played.

1) The majority of Greek manuscripts have the δει.  

2) There are numerous variants at Revelation 13:10b, and it is true that the NU text goes with a variant attested only by a single manuscript.  However, this is also one of the oldest manuscripts of the text, and arguably best explains the rise of the numerous other variants.  I say "arguably," because I'm not necessarily convinced yet by the explanation I've read.

3) The scoffing terms with scare quotes are simple mockery.  Trying to do our best to follow what John originally wrote is not a game, whether or not scholars make it such.  Simple mockery is not a valid argument.

4) More importantly, Will does not offer a demonstration that the TR is right and that the NU text is wrong.  Will does not interact with the scholars' argument for why they believe that Alexandrinus alone preserved the original reading.  

5) I will be interested to see what evidence is offered for the reading in the forthcoming ECM edition of Revelation.  It may indeed be only a single manuscript.

Revelation 18:2

KJB - "And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful BIRD." (orneou)

So read the Majority of all texts, the TR AND Sinaiticus. "every unclean and hateful BIRD" is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, The Message, and the NIV.

However manuscript A (Alexandrinus) reads "the cage of every unclean and hateful BEAST." (theerion)

The previous Westcott-Hort, Nestle's Greek texts read as do the King James Bible and even the NASB, NIV, but later on, the UBS Greek "scholars" decided to change it, and it now includes both readings in full.

So now the 2003 Holman Standard and the 2001 ESV have come out and they add this extra reading of five Greek words which follows neither the Majority text, Sinaiticus nor Alexandrinus. These two latest versions read:

“Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the great! She has become a lair for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN BIRD, AND A HAUNT FOR EVERY UNCLEAN AND DESPICABLE BEAST." (Holman Standard 2003, ESV 2001.) So, it looks like not even the "old" NIV or the 1995 NASB are now "up to date with the latest scholarly findings"!!!

1) Again, the mocking is not particularly helpful, nor does it show any comprehension of the actual issues.

2) There are multiple manuscripts that mention both birds and beasts, but it is a minority reading.

3) By default, I favor the majority reading, but there is nothing in Will's explanation that could help one understand or decide which reading is correct.    

Will continued:

Here are a few more examples of how the modern versions follow different texts and don't agree among themselves.

Revelation 21:3 "And I heard a great voice out of HEAVEN saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, AND BE THEIR GOD."

There are two textual problems with this verse. The word HEAVEN is the Majority reading, as well as that of the TR, the Syriac, Coptic, Old Latin, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the NKJV. However the NASB, NIV, RSV follow Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and say: "I heard a great voice out of THE THRONE saying..."

The second textual variant is where we see more of the hypocricy and fickleness of what they call the "science of textual criticism". The final words in this verse: "AND BE THEIR GOD" are found in multiplied scores of Greek manuscripts including Alexandrinus, the Syriac Peshitta, Philoxenian, Harclean, and the Old Latin.

"And be their God" is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Geneva Bible, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the NKJV, the NIV, the TNIV, the 2004 Holman Standard and the new ESV (English Standard Version). However the NASB from 1960 to 1995 continues to omit these words, as well as the RSV and the NRSV. The silly and misleading footnote in the NASB of 1995 should be noted. The 1960 NASB footnotes: "Some ancient manuscripts add "and be their God". The RSV footnote says: "Other ancient authorities add "and be their God", BUT now the new 1995 NASB tells us: "ONE early manuscript reads: "and be their God". This is flat out deception!!! The UBS Greek text lists ONLY ONE manuscript that OMITS these words, and that is Sinaiticus. Wallace's NET bible version also omits these precious words of inspired Scripture.

The older Nestle Greek text omitted these words, but the newer critical Greek UBS text has once again changed, and they now include these words, though in brackets. Notice too that the previous RSV, and NRSV omitted them, but now the revision of the revision of the revision has once again placed them back into the verse as it has always stood in the King James Bible. Such is the true nature of what the scholars like to call "the science of textual criticism".

1) Isn't it interesting that in the case of Revelation 18:2, Will did not say that the KJV and majority of manuscripts "omit these precious words of inspired Scripture" regarding the beasts.  Of course, the designation begs the question, and - as before, Will offers no real way to discern which reading is correct.

2) The word for "throne" and the word for "heaven" are somewhat similar in appearance.  It seems that one variant probably arose as an error of sight of the original reading.  While I would by default favor the majority reading, Will does not in any meaningful way address the argument for the "throne" reading.

3) If indeed there are misleading footnotes in the NASB, then shame on them.

4) I suppose Will means that the "science of textual criticism" sometimes produces different outputs at different times, whereas the KJV (since 1900) has stayed the same.  That seems to be only a point in favor of the KJV (1900 edition) if it has already corrected everything that needed to be corrected, which Will hasn't established.

Will continues:

In the very last verse of Revelation 22:21 we read in the KJB and the NKJV: "The grace of OUR lord Jesus CHRIST, be with YOU all." Here the NASB, NIV unite in omitting "our" and "Christ" but instead of reading "you all" (pantwn humwn) the NASB follows neither the Majority, nor the TR, but Alexandrinus which omits "you" and says: "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with ALL." This is the reading of ONE Greek manuscript.

The NIV, on the other hand, follows Sinaiticus and even paraphrases this. Sinaiticus says "grace...be with THE SAINTS (twn hagiwn) and the NIV reads: "the grace....be with GOD'S PEOPLE." Again, this is the reading of ONE Greek manuscript.

1) Once again, we can appreciate the need for calling out cases where the NU (or modern versions) follows a singular manuscript reading. 

2) However, where is any manuscript with "ὑμῶν"? None of the manuscripts seem to have this. This is not surprising, because this reading was famously created by Erasmus who did not have the last page of Revelation in his commentary, from which he was extracting the Greek text.

3) By far, the majority text is "all the saints."  I tend to favor the majority reading here, against the shorter readings that omit "all" or omit "the saints."  The fact that 01 and 02 are different from one another on this point is interesting, but Will has no way of resolving which is better.

4) The insertion of "our" is found in a small minority of manuscripts, none of which seem to be very early.  That's doubtless the reason it's not included.

5) The insertion of "Christ" is the majority of manuscripts, but a sizeable minority, including the earliest manuscripts, omit it.  It's an example of one of many expansions of piety, which is doubtless why it is not included.

6) Nevertheless, in each of these cases, Will does not provide us with a reason for why the KJV reading should be accepted.  Instead, Will seems to forsake the battleground of the evidence altogether.

Finally, however, Will turns to considering Revelation 16:5:

Revelation 16:5

"Thou art righteous, O LORD, which art, and wast, AND SHALT BE, because thou hast judged thus."

The texts that underlie Revelation 16:5 vary greatly among themselves. The word LORD is found in 051, 296, 2049, some Latin copies, the Coptic Boharic and Ethiopic ancient versions. LORD is also the reading of Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, KJB, NKJV, Young's, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Douay, Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, and Green's Literal KJV.

The NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV all omit the word LORD.

Manuscript 2049, a 16th century manuscript (i.e. already from the age of printing and copied from a printed edition, as per J.K. Elliot), has the insertion of the word "Lord."  This one is referred to by Hoskier as number 141 (following Scrivener's numbering) and corresponds to von Sodens alpha 1684.

Manuscript 296 is Hoskier's 57 and von Soden's delta 600.  Hoskier indicated that this manuscript has "Lord."  However, as J.K. Elliot pointed out, this text is from the 16th century (i.e. the age of printing) and is copied from a printed text. 

Manuscript 051 does not have "Lord."  It's not clear why it was included in this list.

Oddly enough, Will omits the one relevant manuscript that includes the word "Lord," which is GA manuscript 2344, probably from the 11th century.  He also omitted 2619, which has "Lord," but is probably based on a printed text.

Given the overwhelming weight of the manuscripts, the insertion of "Lord" is best seen as an explanatory expansion to clarify that the angel is speaking to God, not John.

Will continued:

The second part is the one that is more hotly debated - "AND SHALT BE" This is the reading found in the Greek texts of Beza, which the KJB translators mainly used, and is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Green's Literal KJV, Webster's, Young's, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible. I've also located several independent English translation that also read "and shall be". Among these are the Natural Israelite Bible of 2008 done by Ed Schneider; The Urim-Thummin Version 2001, A Revised Translation 1815 by David Macrae; The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments 1808 by Charles Thomson, and A New Family Bible 1824 by Benjamin Boothroyd. "And shall be" is also the reading of the Greek texts the Trinitarian Bible Society of 1894, and that of J.P. Green's interlinear Greek text. The KJB reading is also supported by a Latin commentary on the book of Revelation done way back in 380 A.D. by Beatus.

The "shalt be," "shall be," and "is to be" readings in the English translations are clearly all derived directly or indirectly from Beza's 1582 substitution in which he took "Holy" out and replaced it with "the shall-being".  We will address the claim about Beatus, in responding to Will's next paragraph, which states:

Beatus of Liebana’s compiled commentary on the book of Revelation (786 A.D.) where he uses the Latin phrase “qui fuisti et futures es”. In this compilation he was preserving the commentary of Tyconius (approx 380 A.D.). So there is manuscript support. Whether Beza knew of it or not, the 1611 translators may well have, and we do not know what manuscripts they had at their disposal, likely many more than we know of four centuries later.

1) The Latin used by Tyconius and preserved by Beatus provides two Latin verbs, and also (not mentioned by Will) includes "holy." This is not the same substitution as Beza, even if we thought that the Latin translation was based on a Greek Vorlage with similarly tensed verbs.

2) While anything is possible, Beza makes no mention of it, unless it is a manuscript of Beatus that he was referring to in his annotation.  We have no reason to think he specifically referred to Beatus' commentary, however.  Likewise, we have no reason to think that the King James translators themselves referred to Beatus' commentary.  Moreover, since we have Beatus' commentary, it's really a moot point as to whether Beza or the King James translators had it.

3) We may not know exactly what manuscripts were available to Beza and the King James translators, but we have a pretty good idea.  For example, we know most of the manuscripts that Beza had, and we have reason to think that the King James translators focused on printed texts, especially Beza's 1598 and Stephanus' 1550.  

From here, Will begins to summarize or quote the work of others, namely Moorman and Holland (who in turn referenced Woodworth).  We will consider these in turn.  

Jack Moorman, in his "When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”, says: The King James reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found.

1:4 “him which is, and which was, and which is to come” 1:8 “the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” 4:8 “Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” 11:17 “Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come”

Indeed Christ is the Holy One, but in the Scriptures of the Apostle John the title is found only once (1 John 2:20), and there, a totally different Greek word is used. The Preface to the Authorized Version reads, “With the former translations diligently compared and revised”. (Jack Moorman)

We have elsewhere already dealt with Moorman's arguments (link to video response).  However, since those were in video, it makes sense to respond here.

1) Revelation 1:4 and 1:8 use the phrase, "ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος."  Revelation 4:8 does not use that phrase, but uses a similar phrase, "ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος."  Revelation 11:17 has the shorter phrase, "ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν" (without "καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος") although a minority of manuscripts have the same phrase as Revelation 1:4 and 1:8, and the TR follows that minority reading.  Revelation 16:8 does not have the phrase, "ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος" in any of the manuscripts, and Beza did not propose to have that phrase here.  Beza put "ἐσόμενος" rather than "ἐρχόμενος."  The majority of Greek texts have the same shorter reading of Revelation 11:17 and include "O Holy one" ("ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος."  Thus, it is not the case that the TR reading is "in harmony" with four other places.  Those four other places have three different wordings.  The correct wording here (i.e. ""ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν" without " καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος" or " καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος" is in harmony with the correct reading of Revelation 11:17. 

2) Moorman correctly notes that one of Jesus' names is "Holy." However, Moorman overlooks the fact that Jesus named as "Holy" is present using the same Greek word, just one chapter earlier: Revelation 15:4 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.

3) Furthermore, in Revelation 4:8, Christ is called "Holy" by the four beasts: Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.  It's true that "Holy" there is the synonym "agios" rather than "osios," as in 1 John 2:20. 

Will continued:

What is of great interest is the English Hexapla Greek-5 English versions of 1841. Though the Greek text used in this printed Greek text follows the reading of hosios or "Holy", yet it footnotes that the reading of the Greek Received text is esomenos or "and shalt be". It was called the Received Text reading way back in 1841. You can see the site here: http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/_1304.htm

Among foreign language Bibles that follow the same Greek texts as the King James Bible and read “AND SHALT BE” are the French Martin of 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 with both reading: - “Seigneur, QUI ES, QUI ÉTAIS, et QUI SERAS”, the Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2005 translation also reads like the King James Bible - “Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, oh Señor, que eres y que eras, Y SERAS, porque has juzgado así.”

What is also of interest is that the earlier English Bibles apparently followed some other Greek texts because they do not read as the King James Bible nor as the Critical text versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV. Wycliffe read: “Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis;” Wycliffe left out “and wast” and has the awkward reading that God “WERE Holy”. This came from the Latin Vulgate, which came along after the Old Latin. On the other hand, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 and the Bishops Bible 1568 all read: Lord, which art, and wast, thou art RIGHTEOUS AND HOLY, because thou hast given such judgements.” Here they add the word “righteous” Then the Geneva Bible came along and it differed from all four previous English bibles reading: “Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things.”

1) It is unclear why the label "received text" being used in Revelation 1841 is of "great interest" to Will.  Maybe it is because this particular reading was not universally received, since it is not found in Stephanus 1550 text and in some of the later printings of the Greek text in the 1600s and 1700s.  The term itself was used back in the 1600s, based on a concept that developed already in the 1500s.

2) The previous English Bibles were based either on Latin (such as Wycliffe's) or on Erasmus or Stephanus Greek, or even one of the pre-1582 editions of Beza.  Since Beza had not yet changed the text, they unsurprisingly don't follow his change.

3) Not all foreign language Bibles followed Beza on this, though clearly some did.

Will continued:

Dr. Thomas Holland regarding the KJB reading of Revelation 16:5 http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm "First of all, to change the Trinitarian phraseology (which is used in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:3; and 11:17) does break the sense of the passage and is inconsistent with the phrase used elsewhere by John. Furthermore, the addition of "Holy One" is awkward and is repetitive of the use of the phrase "Thou art righteous, O Lord."

Secondly, there are some textual variances among the changes made. The Greek text of Beza reads, "o wn, kai o hn, kai o esomenos" (who is, and was, and shall be).

Thirdly, P47 is not the only Greek text which is worn here. In fact, while P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation:

"And shall be": The usual publication is "holy one," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture... But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "shall be." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "which is to come" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees. (Theodore Beza, Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)

Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD.

Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does." (end of article by Dr. Thomas Holland) 

I have provided a detailed written response to Thomas Holland (see post here) as well as a video response (see this video).  To reiterate a few highlights, it isn't "Trinitarian phraseology," and Holland's translation of Beza's annotations is seriously wrong at a few points and misleads the reader.  

Will continued:

Instead of "and shalt be" (ho esomenos) most texts read "the Holy" (ho hosios). However there is variation even among these. P47, which is the oldest remaining Greek copy and dates to the third century has a nonsensical reading of "who was AND holy". Vaticanus does not contain the book of Revelation, so we cannot look to it for confirmation one way or the other. Sinaiticus says "who was THE Holy", while Alexandrinus reads: "who was Holy", omitting the word "the". Even among the so called Majority of texts, there are four slightly different readings found, some adding extra definite articles or the word "and", while others do not in varying combinations.

Recall above where Will focused on the apparently misleading claim that the "one early manuscript" reads a certain way?  None of the texts read "and shalt be" rather than "holy," "the holy," "and the holy," or "and holy."  Interestingly, Vaticanus is bound with a copy of Revelation, Manuscript GA 1957, but this is a 15th century manuscript, not the much older manuscript that Vaticanus is elsewhere.  (see discussion here)   

While Will calls P47's reading "nonsensical," P47s reading attempts to smooth the Greek of Revelation by making "Holy" coordinate with "Righteous" earlier in the verse.  Thus, "Righteous you are (who are and were) and Holy" would be the sense.  It's not the original, but it's not "nonsensical" either.  Sinaiticus is better rendered "O Holy One" although "the Holy" is not necessarily a wrong translation.  Alexandrinus' reading is another attempt to smooth the text, in this case by making the text mean something like "righteous you are, the one who is and was holy".  

I have no idea why Will refers to the "so called Majority of texts."  It is not just the majority so-called, but the actual majority of extant manuscript copies.  It's more than four variants, but those four (holy, the holy, and holy, and the holy) are the most frequent. 

Will continued (unfortunately, the images he mentions are not in the version of the article that I am working from):

Another King James Bible believer sent me the following site where you can actually see the Sinaiticus manuscript and what it looks like. He writes: These images might be interesting too. It's the line "ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος̣ (who is and who was that holy one)" in Sinaiticus. The smaller image is a close-up of the word which appears to be οσιος. But as you can see, the last four letters of οσιοs are disproportionately smaller, scrunched together and barely legible. It's very suspicious, and indicative of a scribal "correction." The images are from http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

If you go to the site and look at the Sinaiticus manuscript where Revelation 16:5 is found, what you find are very large capital letters in the entire line, but at the very edge of the line on the border of the manuscript the letters sios which make up osios are about one-forth the size of the previous letters and they are scrunched together and barely legible.

First, let's address the scrunched point:

(raking light)

(standard light)

The last few letters of both the first and second line of the imaged section have smaller letters at the end of the line.  This is not unique to these two lines, but occurs numerous times, as can be seen from this larger shot of the column:

(source)

My speculation regarding the scribe's reason for going to a smaller letter size was to keep track with an exemplar that had a wider column to begin with, at least relative to the usual letter size.  Thus, in some places, the scribe had to reduce the size of the letters to accommodate the rest of a row within the limited space of his column.  This is just speculation, but it makes sense of the otherwise unnecessary reduction in size of letters, as the scribe could just have continued to the next line and kept a standard letter size.  Some people might assume that the smaller letters are corrections, but there are two many such cases at the ends of lines to justify such an assumption.

Regardless of the reasoning, however, Sinaiticus is a witness that tends to support the NU text over the TR at this verse.

Will continued:

You can read much more about the evolution of the textual varieties found in Revelation 16:5 and how not even the remaining earliest manuscripts are in agreement among themselves in this single verse here: https://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/shalt-be-or-holy-one-in-revelation-165

Perhaps in another post, we will consider the "KJV Today" article.  The bottom line, though, is that one thing the earliest manuscripts agree on is the presence of "holy" rather than "shall be."

Will continued:

For the modern versionists who depend on one of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts", namely Sinaiticus, it may be an eye opener to see some of the really strange readings found in this text in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

Will might be interested to discover that the presence of more than three "holy" statements is not unique to Sinaiticus.  Nevertheless, Sinaiticus' unusual readings are beside the point when it comes to Revelation 16:5.  The original text certainly was "holy" not "shall be" at Revelation 16:5, even if Sinaiticus has the most unusual readings on the face of the earth.  

Will continued: 

What we have here in Revelation 16:5 is a very common cluster of divergent readings and the King James Bible went with one reading while other versions went with another.

Thankfully, it is not "very common" that the King James went with a reading with no extant Greek manuscripts supporting it.  Revelation 15:3 might be another example.  However, if it were very common, that would be further reason to improve the KJV, not a reason to dismiss the issue.

Will continued:

It is a well documented fact that multiplied numbers of ancient Greek manuscripts were available to the translators of early English Bible versions that we no longer have today. Another "minority reading" found in the KJB is 1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one". Only a few Greek manuscripts exist today which contain this reading, yet it was not always so. John Gill remarks in his commentary on 1 John regarding this trinitarian verse in the texts used by Stephanus in 1550: " Out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it." This example serves to illustrate that some readings found in the KJB were supported by far more textual evidence than is available for us today.

Error defended by more error.  Even setting aside the typo, as such, there is not good reason to suppose that the translators of early English Bible versions had access to some plethora of now-disappeared manuscripts.  For example of the sixteen "ancient" copies of Robert Stephens, we have almost all of them, and in fact at least eleven of the sixteen are in the Paris Library (BNF), and at least two are in the Cambridge University Library (according to J.K. Elliott in "Manuscripts Cited by Stephanus").  Moreover, John Gill made an understandable error in his claim that "nine of them had it."  He seems to be reasoning that because seven were cited against it, and there were sixteen total, then it follows that the other nine had it.  The problem with this logic is that most of the sixteen were not complete new testaments, and consequently did not include the catholic epistles.  Thus, they were not cited against the comma, but also did not have it (because they did not have 1 John at all).

So, no.  

Will continued:

The King James Bible translators did not slavishly follow Beza's Greek text, but after much prayer, study and comparison, did include Beza's reading of "and shalt be" in Revelation 16:5. We do not know what other Greek texts the KJB translators possessed at that time that may have helped them in their decisions. They then passed this reading on to future generations in the greatest Bible ever written. Since God has clearly placed His mark of divine approval upon the KJB throughout the last 400 years, I trust that He providentially guided the translators to give us His true words.

There is no record of whether or not the KJV translators slavishly or thoughtfully followed Beza's Greek text here.  At least we can say that they must have consciously followed it, as they revised the Bishop's Bible at this place.  The argument from what "we do not know" is a hollow one.  If there was any other manuscript that guided them, no one ever records having seen it, aside from Beza (if we generously interpret Beza as saying he saw a manuscript with this reading). 

Will's claim that God has "clearly placed His mark of divine approval" on the KJV is gratuitously offered and may similarly be denied.  According to Will's view, the KJV printed texts contained errors for nearly 300 years until the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition.  No sooner was that edition made, then God in his Providence caused other versions to begin to flourish and further errors in the KJV to be identified. 

The remainder of Will's article attempts to deal with the problem of the KJV's translation of Revelation 5:8-10.  As that is not germane to our discussion above, I have omitted it here.