Theodore Beza's Annotations at Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, and 16:5

The following is a very lightly edited transcription of Beza's annotations at Revelation 1:4 as found in his 1598 edition (link)(compare the separate annotations from 1594).

4 A Qui est, &c. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν &c. Nequisquam miretur non respondere constructionem, sciendum est Apostolum ita voluisse exprimere quod scriptum est Exodi 3.14, ubi loquens Dominus Mosi nomen ipsius percontati: Dic, inquit, Israelilitis, אהיה שלחני אליכם [eheieh schelachani alechem,] id est, Sum, fui & ero, misit me ad vos. Tradunt enim doctissimi Hebraeorum, ipsique adeo Thalmudistae, verbum EHEIE tria tempora complecti, praesens, praeteritum & futurum: eoque perfectam & omnibus numeris absolutam Dei stabilitatem significari. Hoc vero quî tandem potuit unico vocabulo exprimi? Sed nondum videtur expeditus nodus. Cur enim non dixit τοῦ ὄντος; Respondeo: voluisse Ioannem sacrum illud nomen יהוה [iehovah] explicare, cuius etymologia est in illo exodi loco tradita: quod si ὢν & ἐρχόμενος usus esset tanquam participiis & verbo ἦν, tanquam verbo, nomen illud certe non expressisset sed eius notationem duntaxat: nempe si dixisset τοῦ ὄντος, και ὅσ ἦν, και τοῦ ἐρχόμενου. Itaque ὢν, ἦν &  ἐρχόμενος, non ut participia sed ut propria nomina accipienda sunt: quasi dicas ad verbum Gratia vobis & pax ab Eris, & Erat, & Venturus:  Quod ut in Graeco sermone intelligeretur, necesse fuit addi articulum praepositiuum & quidem masculinum, ipsi etiam verbo ἦν, quasi ἦν sit nomen proprium: ex quo etiam intelligitur quod ante dixi, nempe articulum ὁ in ὁ ὢν & ὁ ἐρχόμενος, non tanquam participiis, neque tanquam nominibus τεχνικως sive materialiter acceptis, sed tanquam propriis nominibus esse adiunctum. Superest adhuc unus scrupulus. Nam quum propria etiam nomina inflectantur, cur non dixit τοῦ ὄντος, και ὅσ ἦν, και τοῦ ἐρχόμενου; Nempe, huc quoq; respexit Ioannes quod apud Hebraeos nomen illud יהוה [iehovah] semper est uniforme, quanuis subjecta puncta mutentur, quae nimirum non sunt ipsius nominis propria, sed aliunde ascita: ideoque ne articulum quidem voluit Ioannes inflectere, quasi & ipse sit proprii nominis pars. Nam si τοῦ ὄντος vel τοῦ ἐρχόμενου dixisset, visa essent participia, non nomina: quod si τοῦ ἦν scripsisset, visus esset articulus neutrius generis, quasi τό ἦν materialiter (quod aiunt) acciperetur. Superest ut ὅ ἦν annotemus melius converteri Erat quam Fuit, ut perpetuitas declaretur cum aeternitate coniuncta, id est, quae principium non habuerit & sit aliena ab omni intermissione, sicut diximus Ioan. 1.1. 

¶ Et Qui venturus est, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Cur non potius ὁ ἒςομ sicut ὁ ἦν;  Nempe duas ob causas: primum quia videretur quodammodo novum aliquod principium essentiae introducere: deinde quia Deum ut iudicem ubique statuit nobis proponere. Scimus autem fore ut Pater in Filio mundum iudicet. Vide infra, 15.5.

One assumes that 15.5 is a typo for 16.5, as there are no notes at 15.5.

The following is a translation of the Latin in the above.

4 From the One who is, &c. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν &c. Let no one be surprised that the construction is irregular (lit. does not answer), it must be understood that the Apostle wished to express what is written in Exodus 3:14, where the Lord speaking to Moses, asked for His name: Say, He says, to the Israelites, אהיה שלחני אליכם [eheieh schelachani alechem,] that is, I am, I was & I will be, has sent me to you. For the most learned of the Hebrews report, and indeed the Talmudists themselves, that the word EHEIE encompasses three times, present, past & future: and by it the perfect & complete stability of God in all respects is signified. But who could have expressed this with a single word? But the knot does not yet seem to be untied. For why did he not say τοῦ ὄντος? I answer: John wished to explain that sacred name יהוה [iehovah], whose etymology is given in that place in Exodus: for if he had used ὢν & ἐρχόμενος as participles and ἦν as a verb, he certainly would not have expressed that name but only its meaning: namely, if he had said τοῦ ὄντος, και ὅσ ἦν, και τοῦ ἐρχόμενου. Therefore ὢν, ἦν & ἐρχόμενος, must be taken not as participles but as proper names: as if you were to say word for word Grace to you & peace from He Who Is, & Who Was, & Who Is Coming. In order that this could be understood in the Greek language, it was necessary to add the prepositive article and indeed the masculine one, even to the verb ἦν, as if ἦν were a proper name: from which is also understood what I said before, namely that the article ὁ in ὁ ὢν & ὁ ἐρχόμενος, is joined not as participles, nor as names technically or materially accepted, but as proper names. There still remains one scruple. For when proper names also are inflected, why did he not say τοῦ ὄντος, και ὅσ ἦν, και τοῦ ἐρχόμενου? Surely, John also had in mind that among the Hebrews that name יהוה [iehovah] is always uniform, although the subjacent points change, which are indeed not proper to the name itself, but are derived from elsewhere: and therefore John did not even wish to inflect the article, as if it too were part of the proper name. For if he had said τοῦ ὄντος or τοῦ ἐρχόμενου, they would have seemed like participles, not names: and if he had written τοῦ ἦν, the article would have seemed of neuter gender, as if τό ἦν were materially (as they say) understood. It remains for us to note that ὅ ἦν is better translated as Was rather than Has Been, so that perpetuity may be declared united with eternity, that is, which has not had a beginning and is foreign to all interruption, as we said in John 1:1.

¶ And the One who is to come, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Why not rather ὁ ἒςομ as ὁ ἦν? Certainly for two reasons: first because it would seem in some way to introduce some new principle of essence: then because it sets God up everywhere to be proposed to us as a judge. However, we know that it will happen that the Father will judge the world in the Son. See below, 15:5.

I have not provided a transcription of the notes at Revelation 1:8, as they do not address the relevant phrase. 

At Revelation 4:8 Beza provided additional notes (p. 1134):

8 Erat, Est, & Venturus est, Ό ἦν, &c. Vide supra, I.4. Vulgata & Erasmus, Qui erat, Qui est, & Qui venturus est. quam interpretationem coactus sum alicubi amplecti, ut novitatem fugerem. Alioqui satis liquet ἦν, ὢν, & ἐρχόμενος poni proprii Dei nominis loco. neque sumenda, ut in vulgari, ermone dicuntur de quopiam qui fuerit, sit, & venturus sit. Est autem insignis etiam hic locus adstruendae Christi coessentiali Deitati, quum de eo qui venturus est hîc agatur, id est, de Christo ipso. 

8 Was, Is, & Will Come, Ό ἦν, &c. See above, I.4. The Vulgate & Erasmus, Who was, Who is, & Who will come. An interpretation that I am compelled to embrace somewhat, so that I may avoid novelty. Otherwise, it is quite clear that ἦν, ὢν, & ἐρχόμενος are placed in the position of God's proper name. nor should they be understood, as in the common language, as being said about someone who was, is, & will come. Moreover, this passage is also remarkable for establishing the coessential Deity of Christ, when it is here discussed about the one who is to come, that is, about Christ himself.

The comments at Revelation 11:17 are even more terse:

17. Qui es, &c. ὁ ὢν &c. Vide supra, I.4, & 4.8.

17. Which are, &c. ὁ ὢν &c.  See above, 1.4 & 4.8.

I note that despite Beza's comments about God's name being a proper and indeclinable name at 1.8, here he conjugates the Latin to second person (rather than third person as in 1.4, 1.8, and 4.8) in accordance with his predecessors.

Finally, at Revelation 16:5 (p. 1152)

5 Et qui eris, καὶ Ό ἐσόμενος. Legitur vulgo, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, ostendente articulo, praeter omnem loquendi morem, depravatam esse scripturam. Vulgata vero sive articulum legit sive non legit, nihilo rectius vertit ὅσιος, Sanctus, male extrita particula καὶ, prorsus necessaria ut δίκαιος & ὅσιος connectantur. Sed quum Ioannes reliquis omnibus locis ubi Iehouae nomen explicat, sicuti diximus supra, I.4. addere consueuerit tertium, nempe καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, cur istud hoc loco praeteriisset? Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui nempe Ό ἐσόμενος. Causa vero cur hîc non scribatur Ό ἐρχόμενος, ut supra quatuor locis, nempe I.4&8. item 4.8:& 11.17, haec est, quoniam ibi de Christo ut iudice venturo agitur: in hac vero visione proponitur ut iam in tribunali sedens, & decreta iudicia, & ea quidem aeterna exercens.

5 And who [you] will be, καὶ Ό ἐσόμενος. It is commonly read, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, the article indicating, against all manner of speaking, that the scripture has been corrupted. But whether the Vulgate reads the article or not, it translates ὅσιος no more correctly as "Sanctus" (Holy), wrongly omitting the particle καὶ, which is absolutely necessary to connect δίκαιος (righteous) & ὅσιος. But when John, in all the other places where he explains the name of Jehovah, as we said above, I.4, usually adds the third, namely καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, why would he have omitted that here? Therefore, I cannot doubt that the genuine scripture is what I have restored from an old bona fide manuscript (lit. old manuscript of good faith), namely Ό ἐσόμενος. The reason why Ό ἐρχόμενος is not written here, as in the four places above, namely I.4 & 8, likewise 4.8 & 11.17, is this: because there it deals with Christ as the judge who is to come; but in this vision, He is presented as already sitting on the tribunal, and exercising the decreed judgments, and indeed eternal ones.

Recall that Beza's handwritten annotation to a printed 1565 text had merely proposed the substitution of ὁ ἐσόμενος for ὁ ὅσιος.

.