Dr. Jan Krans, who has provided the definitive treatment of conjectural emendation by Erasmus and Beza, provided an article on conjectural emendation as it relates to Revelation in the Editio Critical Maior of Revelation (VI/3.1, pp. 419-20). In this article, Dr. Krans addresses Beza and Revelation 16:5. The following is my own English translation of Krans' German original (the translation has not been approved in any way by Dr. Krans, and I have omitted the two footnotes for this section of the text):
A fairly famous case that I did not mention in my 2006 doctoral thesis is Revelation 16:5. Here, in his third edition (1582), Beza replaced ὁ ὅσιος with ὁ ἐσόμενος, even in his Greek text and in his translation, not just in his Annotations. At the time, I thought that the reading ὁ ἐσόμενος was not a conjecture, because Beza himself said that he knew of an old manuscript with this reading. But now I know that in all probability such a manuscript does not exist and never has existed. As we will see, it is quite possible that Beza deceived himself as well as everyone else. Let us first take a closer look at Beza's remark:
"And he will be, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος. Usually καὶ ὁ ὅσιος is read, but the article is contrary to all rules of language and shows that the reading is corrupt. The Vulgate, whether it reads the article or not, has by no means a more correct "Sanctus" ("holy"), ὅσιος, whereby the particle καί is wrongly omitted, although it is necessary to connect δίκαιος and ὅσιος. But as we said above on Rev. 1:4, John was accustomed to add a third element in all other places where he extended the name of Jehovah, namely ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Why then would he have omitted this in this place? Therefore I cannot doubt that the original reading is the one which I have restored on the basis of an ancient and reliable manuscript, namely ὁ ἐσόμενος. Here is not ὁ ἐρχόμενος, as in the four places above (1:4, 1:8, 4:8 and 11:17), probably for the reason that there it is Christ as the coming judge, while in this vision is presented as already sitting on the judge's seat and delivering legal orders. "
Beza here presents several arguments to change the reading. It is clear, however, that this is different from earlier passages, such as in Revelation 1:4. The reason for his conjecture is thus given: the author of the Apocalypse seems to be inconsistent, because otherwise the expression ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν is always ended by ὁ ἐρχόμενος. This pattern is restored by Beza, and at the same time changed, for the sake of context, for his conjecture here has ἐσόμενος instead of this ἐρχόμενος, because Christ in the previous passages (Rev 1:4,8; 4:8; 11:17) was the coming judge, but now already sits on the judgment seat.
But what about the "old and reliable manuscript" to which Beza refers? I do not claim to have solved the riddle, but I will make a suggestion for a possible sequence of events. It is fortunate that the hand copy of his second edition from 1565, which Beza used during the preparation of the third edition (1582), has survived. There are only a few entries in the Apocalypse, but here in Revelation 16:5 Beza has underlined ὁ ὅσιος and written in the margin ὁ ἐσόμενος, i.e. his conjecture, but nothing more. A similar entry can be found in Revelation 1:4, where he has underlined τοῦ and noted in the margin "In vetusto c[odice] legatur θεοῦ", "In an old manuscript it says θεοῦ." The difference is that here it is already explicitly a manuscript was mentioned, although Beza, in characteristic fashion, does not care which manuscript is meant. What I now suspect - also a kind of conjecture - is the following: In Revelation 16:5, Beza added ὁ ἐσόμενος early on, not from a manuscript, perhaps not even as a conjecture, but as the reading he would have expected, according to the pattern described above. Later, let us say when preparing the third edition for printing itself, i.e. around 1582, he simply forgot where this ὁ ἐσόμενος came from, and, following the example of Revelation 1:4, assumed that it was the same "old and [now because he liked the reading] reliable manuscript". This alone can explain why Beza referred to a manuscript that in all probability never existed.
Had Beza known that ὁ ἐσόμενος was actually nothing more than his own guess (or exegetical remark), he would probably never have included the reading in his text. There is a certain irony to the whole story. Be that as it may, one can see here again the co-expectation of heresy and its devastating effect. The case is well known because it plays a role in the ongoing discussion on the Internet about the King James Version and the Textus Receptus (comparable to that about Erasmus and the conclusion of the Apocalypse). "O Beza, why did you do that?" asks one person. A question to which, in my opinion, there is only one answer: so that future generations can be left with a clear, all too clear example of the historical contingency of the Textus Receptus.
I tend to agree with Dr. Krans' analysis. The reading "θεοῦ" is a variant found in Stephanus' margin. We have good reason to believe that Beza had access to Stephanus' textual apparatus as it appears in the 1550 edition. It is also believed that Beza may have had access to a more detailed unpublished apparatus prepared by Henri Stephanus.
Stephanus identifies the manuscript in question as 15(ιε), namely GA 82, a tenth century miniscule.
GA 82 differs slightly from the text of Beza (pre-1582) in terms of having "ο ων. και ος ην οσιος" (INTF transcription).
Stephanus' margin does note a variant at Revelation 16:5 and points to the same manuscript: 15(ιε), namely GA 82. In this case, though, I believe Stephanus intended to direct the reader to the fact that GA 82 does not insert "Lord" into the text.
Of course, it is possible that Henri Stephanus' more complete apparatus (assuming this in fact existed and that Beza had it) may have mentioned the absence of the "και ο" before the "οσιος". These are details that Beza's explanation aims to address, at least in part.
That leaves the question of whether possibly Henri Stephanus himself in his more complete apparatus suggested the conjectural emendation adopted by Beza. We must admit, however, that this is simply speculation, as the more complete apparatus (if it existed) seems to have been lost to time.
Based on my reading of Dr. Krans' thesis, I believe it would be accurate to say that Beza generally only identified the two codices in his possession: Codex Claromontanus and Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Neither of these manuscripts includes Revelation.
I don't think Dr. Krans' take is too harsh, namely that Beza did not particularly care which manuscript had a given reading. So, it makes sense that his handwritten notes mention a manuscript, but not which manuscript (the note referenced by Dr. Krans at Revelation 1:4 is reproduced below):
Whether Beza was then tripped up by the excessive brevity of his note at Revelation 16:5 (reproduced below) or whether Beza misread the notes of Henri Stephanus, we may never know.
It was interesting to note that Dr. Krans had not included Revelation 16:5 in his thesis because Beza asserted he had based his change on a manuscript. What seems inescapable, however, is that Beza seems to have been wrong in that claim. As we have no reason to think Beza a liar, we must conclude that he came to this error honestly.
