Jeffrey Khoo has provided some arguments regarding Revelation 16:5 (Errors in the King James Version? A Response to William W. Combs of Detroit Baptist Seminary in The Burning Bush, Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2009)(Cited by Moorman as "Dean Burgon Society eNews, 89- Sept. 2009," which based on the title and date I assume to be essentially the same point.)
*** Start of Khoo ***
Revelation 16:5
Combs says there is "an indisputable error" in Revelation 16:5 where the KJV reads, "And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus." He says the words "shalt be," should read "holy one." He says there is no evidence whatsoever for the reading "shalt be" which translates accurately the Greek esomenos. According to Combs the right word should be hosios ("holy one") and not esomenos.49
It ought to be noted that Beza said he was certain about the reading esomenos in Revelation 16:5 in light of the internal evidences and the ancient manuscript he had in his possession. To be sure, Beza was not a Bible corrector but a Bible believer and defender of the Faith. As such, he would have known only too well the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 against adding to or subtracting from the Holy Scriptures. There must have been compelling reasons for him, with a high view of Scripture, to restore to the Holy Scriptures the true reading which his predecessors had apparently overlooked. He gave his reasons as follows,
"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. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "holy," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "and," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "righteous" and "holy one." 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."50
Besides the ancient Greek manuscript that Beza had, it ought to be noted that Beatus of Liebana in the eighth century, in his compilation of commentaries on the Book of Revelation has the Latin phrase, qui fuisti et futures es, for Revelation 16:5 which was found in the commentary of Tyconius which goes back to the fourth century.51 It is entirely possible that there were either early Greek manuscripts or Old Latin versions as early as the fourth century which contained the reading esomenos.
It is also significant to note that the reading hosios preferred by Combs is a harder reading. Robert L Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, citing Swete commented, "Taking hosios as parallel with dikaios creates an intolerable harshness, however, and taking the adjective as a predicate adjective with ho on and ho en breaks the pattern of the Apocalypse in not assigning the expression a predicate nominative or adjective."52 We note that the reading ho esomenos, the future participle of eimi in its masculine, singular, nominative form with the definite article fits well the pattern of the Apocalypse and functions well as an adjectival participle to describe dikaios—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world.
Although it is admitted that ho esomenos is not the reading found in the Majority Text, we are wont to agree with Hills that such minority readings "seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained."53 It is also admitted that the reading of ho hosios in Stephen’s edition of the TR differs from Beza’s ho esomenos. So what do we do with the rare occasions when the several editions of the TR differ from one another? Hills replied,
The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely the Greek text underlying the King James Version.54
The reading of Revelation 16:5 in the Greek Text underlying the KJV is thus not proven as "an indisputable error" as Combs would have us think. There are enough reasons for us to receive it as an authentic reading in the light of God’s special providence as seen in both the internal and external evidences.55
...
49 Combs, "Errors in the King James Version?," 156.
50 As cited in Thomas Holland, "Manuscript Evidence," http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm, accessed on 9 March 2009, emphasis mine.
51 Ibid. See also Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 211, for information on Beatus of Liebana.
52 Robert L Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 255-6.
53 Hills, The King James Version Defended, 200.
54 Ibid., 223.
55 See also Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text, 102.
*** End of Khoo ***
A few thoughts:
1) Beza's certainty is not something that moves me, and I'm not sure why it would move anyone else.
2) The assertion, "the ancient manuscript he had in his possession," is unsubstantiated. Most of Beza's references to manuscripts are references to collations by others (as discussed here, for example), not manuscripts in his possession. Moreover, no such manuscript was seen before or since. Perhaps such a manuscript did exist. Maybe it was Stephanus' manuscript 16. Even if it did, so what? Why would we think a reading found in a single manuscript is correct?
3) The claim that "Beza was not a Bible corrector" is somewhat absurd. All of Beza's editions prior to 1580 (and all of the other editions of the Greek New Testament, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic) had a different reading, which Beza changed in 1580. The only sense in which Beza was not a "Bible corrector" in this instance is that his correction was not correct.
4) The assertion that "There must have been compelling reasons" for Beza to alter the text is only true as it regards Beza. Beza felt there were compelling reasons. But are Beza's reasons compelling? Beza's explanation does not even address the best reading of the text here - the reading with the most Greek manuscripts in its favor.
5) Thomas Holland's mistranslation of Beza's is not really Khoo's fault, but it is erroneous nonetheless. Furthermore, how could anyone find Holland's version of Beza "compelling"? It makes little sense as written. For example, it does not address why not "and is to come" as in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8. It also seems to be an argument not so much from a manuscript itself as from the damaged section of a manuscript.
6) Beatus may point us to a reading of Revelation 16 attested to by Tyconius. Nevertheless, the best explanation for Beatus/Tyconius' Latin reading of "qui fuisti et futures es" is that it is a paraphrastic translation of "εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν" rather than being a witness to an otherwise unwitnessed Greek text with esomenos, because it uses two tenses of the verb "to be" rather than the three proposed by Beza. Moreover, Beatus/Tyconius is a witness to "holy" being present in Revelation 16:5.
7) Oddly, Khoo argues that "hosios" is a "harder" reading, a point which ought to be in its favor, but seems to be taken as the opposite by Khoo.
8) Khoo's claim that "shall be" "functions well as an adjectival participle to describe dikaios—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world" is opposite of the actual opinion of Beza himself, who argued that coming in judgment has already begun. Furthermore, "shall be" is (per Beza) merely a part of the explanation of the meaning of YHWH.
9) It is true that Hills, who took this to a be a conjecture, asserted that it "seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained." But there does not seem to be any basis for this "special providence" claim. The reading is not attested by signs and wonders or anything else miraculous that could be deemed a "special providence."
10) Likewise, even if Hills thinks we should go with the KJV, Hills' authority is very slight. The force of his argument depends on thinking that God has placed his stamp of approval on the King James Version, a fact that does not seem to be so.
No comments:
Post a Comment