I had trouble identifying the specific author for this work. A webpage of the University of Pennsylvania, offers this:
Title: Cambridge Greek Testament for schools and colleges.
Author: Parry, R. St. John (Reginald St. John), 1858-1935
Author: Chase, F. H. (Frederic Henry), 1853-1925
Author: Robinson, J. Armitage (Joseph Armitage), 1858-1933
Author: Perowne, J. J. Stewart (John James Stewart), 1823-1904
Note: University Press, 1881
Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, at Revelation 16:5, writes:
O Lord ] Should be omitted.
which art, and wast, and shalt be ] Read, which art and wast, the Holy One : the word for “holy” being the same as in 15:4. As the phrase for “which art and wast” is ungrammatical (see on 1:4), it is perhaps better to render “which is and which was.” For the omission of “which is to come,” cf. 11:17. Its virtual insertion here in the A. V. seems to be an oversight in translation, not a mistaken reading.
While the conclusion as to the correct reading is basically right, the path to get there is a mess! "which art and wast" is not ungrammatical here, because the angel is speaking to the Lord. We could well criticize this translation, however, as translating participles as verbs rather than as the names they are.
Note well: "Its virtual insertion here in the A. V. seems to be an oversight in translation, not a mistaken reading." Considering that Scrivener had not yet (by the time this commentary was written) published his reconstruction of the text presumably used by the KJV translators, it is understandable that the commentators probably compared the AV text to Stephanus and saw hosios rather than esomenos. However, it seems to me to be incredibly unlikely that this was an oversight in translation, but instead it was a mistaken reading, namely a mis-correction by Beza.
At Revelation 11:17, the CGTSC writes:
which art, and wast ] Omit and art to come , as in 16:5. It is not, however, likely that any importance is to be attached to the omission of the full expression we had in 1:4, 8, 4:8.
Again, the reading conclusion may be right, but to attach no importance to the difference is an error.
There is nothing of interest at Revelation 4:8, but at Revelation 1:4, the CGTSC writes:
which is, and which was, and which is to come ] A paraphrase of the “Ineffable name” revealed to Moses (Exodus 3:14 sq.), which we, after Jewish usage, write “Jehovah” and pronounce “the Lord.” Or, rather perhaps, a paraphrase of the explanation of the Name given to him l. c., “I am That I am” which is rendered by the LXX. “I am He Which Is;” by the Targum of Palestine on Exod. “I am He who is and who will be.” The same Targum on Deuteronomy 32:39 has “Behold now, I am He who Am and Was, and Will Be.”
which was ] is again ungrammatical in Greek: the only word that could be used grammatically, would mean “which was made” or “which began to be,” and is therefore avoided. Compare the opposition of the “being” of God or Christ, and the “becoming” or “being made” of creatures, in St John’s Gospel, 1:6, 8, 9, 8:58.
is to come ] Probably only used to express future time not referring to the “ Coming ” of Christ; for thus far we have a threefold name for the Father the Son is separately mentioned afterwards. Else, “He that is to come” is often used as a familiar and distinctive title of Christ: see Matthew 11:3 , Matthew 11:21 :9; John 6:14 , John 6:11 :27; Hebrews 10:37 ; John Ep. 11:7: cf. Ep. I. 2:18, where the same word is pointedly used of Antichrist . But with this more general sense we may compare “the wrath to come,” 1 Thessalonians 1:10 , “the world to come,” Mark 10:30 , and “things to come,” John 16:13 , John 18:4 .
At least at "which was," the CGTSC wisely provides a reason for not using "made" or "began to be." This, however, backfires at the explanation for "is to come," where there is a Greek future participle to use, if that were the intent. I like the point that "He that is to come" is elsewhere sometimes used of Christ, but it is not clear that such a sense is intended here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.